[ros-users] resolving open REP-0122 issues

[Bill Morris]

I have been working on some ideas for structuring the /etc/ros directory

README
  The information below

/etc/ros/network.conf
  A file that contains the shell environment settings for the network
    ROS_INTERFACE=wlan0
    ROS_IP=192.168.1.101

/etc/ros/robot.launch
  Primary Startup Launch file loaded at bootup

/etc/ros/conf.d
  Additional launch files loaded at bootup

/etc/ros/urdf
  URDF model of the robot

/etc/ros/sys
  The system files can be symlinked to this directory
  Upstart script
    /etc/init/ros.conf -> /etc/ros/sys/ros.conf
  udev rules
    /etc/udev/rules.d/50-usb-serial-port-assignment.rules
-> /etc/ros/sys/50-usb-serial-port-assignment.rules

/etc/ros/setup.[sh|bash|zsh]
  This can be copied or symlinked to /opt/ros/<distro>

By default a new install would have a directory
/etc/ros-<distro> (ie. /etc/ros-fuerte) that would have the default
versions of all of these files.
/etc/ros would then be symlinked to /etc/ros-<distro> 

The user could remove the symlink and make their own local changes
that would not be overwritten when new versions of the debian packages
are pushed out. This would also allow autoconfiguration scripts to
remove the sym link to save the original working configuration from
being overwritten.

On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 18:30 +0200, Lorenz Mösenlechner wrote: 
> Hi,
> 
> I remember a discussion on that before Fuerte was released. Wasn't it
> even decided that roscreate-stack should re-appear?
> 
> I think creating a new REP should be best. I'd like to see everything
> moved into <prefix>/lib and maybe put into a sub-directory ros. I.e.:
> /opt/ros/<distro>/lib/ros/<stack>/<package>.
> 
> Lorenz
> 
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 6:23 PM, Piyush <piyushk at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Jonathan Bohren
> > <jonathan.bohren at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Jack O'Quin <jack.oquin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> We need to resolve some fundamental build and filesystem layout issues
> >>> in time for Groovy.
> >>>
> >>> There are basic problems with REP-0122 that we were not able to fix in
> >>> time for Fuerte. To me, the biggest issue is placing binary files
> >>> under the "share" directory. But, there are others mentioned in the
> >>> REP, itself:
> >>>
> >>>  http://www.ros.org/reps/rep-0122.html#future-work
> >>>
> >>
> >> I know this is slightly off-topic, but now that you bring this up, I always
> >> felt that the removal of roscreate-stack was overkill. If it's worth
> >> anything, I think it should be brought back. It doesn't need to deal with
> >> dependencies, but it's useful just to not have to copy the CMakeLists,
> >> Makefile, and stack.xml from a stack I've already created.
> >
> > +1 for reintroducing roscreate-stack without dealing with dependencies
> >
> >>
> >> One important thing I'd like people to keep in mind when discussing the
> >> install behavior is that most ROS development environments have tons of
> >> non-installed packages. The package semantics were really designed for that
> >> use-pattern and it would be unfortunate if installation-behavior changes
> >> diminished the speed and flexibility that the uninstalled stack/package
> >> semantics provide.
> >>
> >> -j
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Bill Morris <bill at iheartengineering.com>
I Heart Engineering
http://www.iheartengineering.com
<3