[ros-users] REP 3: Target Platforms updates for Fuerte and Groovy

Ken Conley kwc at willowgarage.com
Tue Nov 8 21:15:59 UTC 2011


I added a section on Python 3 to:

http://www.ros.org/wiki/ROS/Roadmap

which is linked to from the bottom of the rospy page.  It's on the
wiki, so feel free to add/edit.

cheers,
Ken

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 2:28 AM, Ingo Lütkebohle <iluetkeb at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thanks for the background info. I don't know how official /this/ is
> ;-) but if it is, it would be good to add to the rospy pages in the
> Wiki, to summarize the current state regarding Python 3k. Part of my
> reason to ask here was because I couldn't find much information about
> this, apart from a presentation by the TUM guys.
>
> At the moment I'm not using Py3K in enough places to take any of this
> on, but I'll keep it in mind.
>
> Best Regards,
> Ingo
>
> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 6:11 PM, Ken Conley <kwc at willowgarage.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 5:25 AM, Ingo Lütkebohle <iluetkeb at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> what about "official" Python 3 support, at least in the core libraries?
>>
>> A general response to, "is X officially supported?"
>>
>> 'official' support usually means:
>>
>>  1. There are tests/continuous integration for it
>>  2. Someone supports it
>>
>> The TUM guys did a great job getting us a lot of the way there and
>> their patches have been incorporated, but #1 and #2 are still not
>> present.  The patches also don't cover command-line tools, just the
>> libraries exercised by MORSE.
>>
>> Python 3 compatibility requires fairly complete coverage tests; I have
>> been refactoring the Python libraries to make this easier for someone
>> who wants to take this on, but there is no Py3k continuous
>> integration.  Py3k tests require a different set of assumptions
>> regarding strings, bytes, unicode, and iterators -- as an example, it
>> was possible to create filenames in 3.0 and 3.1 that Py3k programs
>> could not open.
>>
>> Similarly, for #2, the general rules is that someone has to use the
>> thing being supported, as you can't support something you don't use.
>> We can provide resources, such as build farm resources, to someone who
>> does wish to take on this role.
>>
>> We will continue to accept patches relating to Python 3, so long as
>> they don't break Python 2, and I will continue to update code to a
>> dual 2/3 style as I encounter it.  Trickier issues, such as the
>> bytes/string representation issues, remain active areas of work [1].
>>
>>  - Ken
>>
>> [1]: http://answers.ros.org/question/2032/smach-introspection-server-fails-in-electric?answer=4499#4499
>>
>>> I'm asking specifically because we're currently using Blender and/or
>>> MORSE, which requires Python 3. The TUM guys have already done some
>>> work to port ROS messaging to Python 3, but as far as I know that is
>>> not official, yet.
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> Ingo
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Ken Conley <kwc at willowgarage.com> wrote:
>>>> 2011/11/7 Stéphane Magnenat <stephane at magnenat.net>:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> What is the plan w.r.t. C++11? Now that the standard is out, and that a
>>>>> large part of features are available in recent g++ releases, we will see
>>>>> many upstream libraries going for it. As upstream developer, it is clearly
>>>>> always a question of whether to adopt such a recent standard, but given the
>>>>> huge speed-up in development it brings in some cases, I have decided to go
>>>>> for using features that are at least in gcc 4.4.
>>>>
>>>> The topic wasn't brought up during the Thirdparty SIG meeting.  The
>>>> approximation of that topic is that Lucid is the current lower
>>>> watermark (gcc 4.4) for integration in Fuerte and Groovy will move to
>>>> Oneiric (gcc 4.6).
>>>>
>>>> GCC C++ 11 status (still 'experimental'): http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html
>>>>
>>>> It's always possible to reconvene the SIG to discuss C++ 11 more
>>>> specifically; I'm coordinator but I do not pretend to be knowledgeable
>>>> in that issue.
>>>>
>>>>  - Ken
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To allow integration of recent code from research, I think that ROS should,
>>>>> whenever possible, embrace C++11.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Stéphane
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dr Stéphane Magnenat
>>>>> http://stephane.magnenat.net
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ingo Lütkebohle
>>> Bielefeld University
>>> http://www.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/~iluetkeb/
>>>
>>> PGP Fingerprint 3187 4DEC 47E6 1B1E 6F4F  57D4 CD90 C164 34AD CE5B
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ingo Lütkebohle
> Bielefeld University
> http://www.techfak.uni-bielefeld.de/~iluetkeb/
>
> PGP Fingerprint 3187 4DEC 47E6 1B1E 6F4F  57D4 CD90 C164 34AD CE5B
> _______________________________________________
> ros-users mailing list
> ros-users at code.ros.org
> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
>



More information about the ros-users mailing list