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

[Piyush]

Hi Joris,

The patch was only for artoolkit. ar_pose compiles correctly on
diamondback lucid/natty. For the purposes of this patch, can you check
whether artoolkit compiles or not?

Piyush

On Sun, Nov 6, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Joris <joris at wintermute.eu> wrote:
> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>