[ros-users] resolving open REP-0122 issues

Dirk Thomas dthomas at willowgarage.com
Wed Jul 25 00:01:45 UTC 2012


On 24.07.2012 15:38, Jack O'Quin wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 5:15 PM, Dirk Thomas <dthomas at willowgarage.com> wrote:
>
>> For the dry world all artifacts are deployed under the package name.
>> In a wet-only world I would expect that all artifacts of a stack should
>> reside under a folder named after the stack.
>
> Why do you want to change that?

If catkin has no notion of packages,
debian packages are build from stacks
and the manifest.xml files are not interpreted (i.e. for dependencies etc.)
I would expect a stack "foo" to only provide stuff in a subfolder called "foo".

That seems to me like the cleanest solution for a wet-only world.
For bc it might still be necessary to provide manifest.xml files and put them in a folder named by a package.

It comes down to the question if the future catkin-only world will have anything like a package (and manifest.xml files).
If argued yes:
- what is it used for?
- why is it needed (besides stacks)?

(Obviously my opinion is that packages a on-standard way - so for a CMake based buildsystem like catkin I would vote for not having a notion of packages for wet-only)

If no, shouldn't the deployment folder than be renamed to be the stack name?

Please think about how a catkin-only world should look like and reply your opinions - I am looking forward for any feedback!

- Dirk




More information about the ros-users mailing list