[ros-users] patch + packages for ccny_vision on natty

[Joris]

I've tested ccny_vision with Piyush's patch on Oneiric / electric:
there remains a build failure in ar_pose on my system. You can check
out the build log on:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B7-w1-hkaL2FNDU4NWEyOGEtMTBiNi00OTE3LWEyNTUtYzIxNGRiYmE2OWVm

nb: I replaced ccny_vision/rosdep.yaml with the bullet stack's
rosdep.yaml to bypass a rosdep failure.

Joris

On 5 November 2011 18:36, Piyush <piyushk at gmail.com> wrote:
> My apologies for the delay. I have had limited free time the past
> couple of weeks. Try:
>
> git clone http://robotics.ccny.cuny.edu/git/ccny-ros-pkg/ccny_vision.git
> cd ccny_vision
> wget http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~piyushk/ccny_vision_artoolkit.patch
> git apply ccny_vision_artoolkit.patch
> rosmake ccny_vision --rosdep-install
>
> Notes:
> 1) I created the patch using git show after making a single commit.
> git apply shows a bunch of warnings that do not affect the compilation
> process. Normally I would debug these warnings, but I don't have time
> atm to do so. You guys should be able to check if it causes any
> indentation issues when you push changes to the master repository
> 2) This patch now uses the original tarball and works according to
> Bill's suggestions.
> 3) There are 2 patches that are applied (through TARBALL_PATCH in
> download_unpack_build.mk). patch_auto_config is the replacement for
> the original patch_v4l. patch_v4l allows compilation on natty.
>
> I have tested on Lucid (2.6.32) and Natty (2.6.38). I am currently not
> sure whether this works on oneiric. (Joris, can you test this and let
> us know)
>
> Piyush
>
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 1:58 PM, Piyush <piyushk at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I was a bit busy as well, and then I forgot. I'll try to put it
>> together tonight and send it in.
>>
>> Piyush
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 8:37 AM, Ivan Dryanovski
>> <ivan.dryanovski at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Piyush,
>>>
>>> I haven't been able to look into this issue in much detail until now.
>>> I'd like to release a new patched version. Have you created a patch in
>>> accordance to Bill''s suggestions?
>>>
>>> Ivan
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Piyush <piyushk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Bill Morris <bill at iheartengineering.com> wrote:
>>>>> I am not sure this is the ideal solution.
>>>>>
>>>>> First a patch should probably be pushed upstream if possible. I emailed
>>>>> Philip Lamb at ARToolworks to see if they are accepting patches for the
>>>>> GPL version.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is an excellent point. Let me know if you hear back from Philip,
>>>> and whether the patch can be pushed to the main ARToolKit repository.
>>>>
>>>>> Second, I would prefer not modifying the tarball directly as it is
>>>>> supposed to be a snapshot of the ARToolkit SVN. I think the preferred
>>>>> route is to use patch and replace the patch_v4l kludge.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is probably clearer what something like the patch system for the
>>>>> canonical scan matcher is doing.
>>>>> ccny-ros-pkg/scan_tools/csm/Makefile
>>>>> ----
>>>>> patch:
>>>>> ifneq (,$(wildcard $(BUILD_DIR)/.patched))
>>>>>        @echo Patching CSM
>>>>>        cd $(SOURCE_DIR) && patch -p0 < ../../patch_a
>>>>>        cd $(SOURCE_DIR) && patch -p0 < ../../patch_b
>>>>>        cd $(SOURCE_DIR) && patch -p0 < ../../patch_c
>>>>>        touch $(BUILD_DIR)/.patched
>>>>> else
>>>>>        @echo CSM previously patched, use 'make wipe' to completely
>>>>> remove build directory.
>>>>> endif
>>>>>
>>>>> wipe: clean
>>>>>        rm -rf $(BUILD_DIR)
>>>>> ----
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This looks much better. I can rewrite this using 2 patch files - one
>>>> for the change the patch_v4l currently provides, and one for the the
>>>> v4l stuff. Is this ok with the guys at CCNY?
>>>>
>>>>> Is there a REP for third party packages?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 2011-10-08 at 17:59 -0500, Piyush wrote:
>>>>>> This is correct - the patch was only for Natty. For some weird reason
>>>>>> I assumed that the debs could be built externally without pushing this
>>>>>> change to the repository. It was a bad idea in the first place.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will see if I can work on this later tonight - the patch is still
>>>>>> relatively easy based on what Bill suggests, and will require
>>>>>> modifying ARToolKit's custom configuration script to provide the
>>>>>> LIBV4L1 flag as necessary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Piyush
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Bill Morris <bill at iheartengineering.com>
>>>>> I Heart Engineering
>>>>> http://www.iheartengineering.com
>>>>> <3
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> ros-users mailing list
>>>>> ros-users at code.ros.org
>>>>> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Piyush
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> ros-users mailing list
>>>> ros-users at code.ros.org
>>>> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> ros-users mailing list
>>> ros-users at code.ros.org
>>> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
>>>
>>
>