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

[Ivan Dryanovski]

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
>