[ros-users] Draft REP rosinstall setup-file element

[Thibault Kruse]

I am all for a syntax overhaul, which I have expressed here:
http://code.ros.org/lurker/message/20120302.042603.684fdd91.fi.html

and it should also consider the roadmap of possible future
rosinstall/rosws features I sketched here:
http://www.ros.org/doc/api/rosinstall/html/rosws.html#roadmap

However designing a DSL involves a lot of usability work, which without
user studies comes down to personal experiences and taste. I am always
happy to discuss such changes, but I think the first decision should be
whether now is the time to discuss such changes at all or not.

REP126 is really just a hasty solution to support fuerte's new setup.sh
and be backwards compatible with earlier distros, also with respect to
user experience.

I have to admit that I am not quite convinced of whether this change to
rosinstall should be a REP at all, it seems more of an announcement of
what changes were deemed the most practicable solution to enable the
fuerte release, while people are busy working on more pressing matters.

(That apart from the fact that rosinstall is outscoped with REP0002, which
I have read just read now)



> In general I'm a +1 on this, though at some point we will need to
> overhaul the syntax as the overloading of the 'other' element and now
> the inclusion of a 'setup-file' element has made the semantics
> muddled.  For future reference/record, the 'other' element should
> probably be done away with in favor of more specific semantics, like
> 'setup-file'.
>
> The 'setup-file' itself could be extended to handled other shells more
> explicitly.  In the current implementation, rosinstall's own setup
> file does a lot of inference to source rosbash, which is undesireable
> as this can lead to different results from Fuerte's
> etc/catkin/profile.d/ bash-specific hooks.
>
>  - Ken
>
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Thibault Kruse <kruset at in.tum.de> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> with Fuerte approaching, there are several migrations to perform.
>> As one such migration the rosinstall specification needs to change a bit
>> to adapt to fuerte.
>>
>> Find attached a REP drafted by Tully Foote and me to make rosinstall
>> work
>> with Fuerte (and previous distros as well, of course).
>>
>> The reference implementation for it is the latest rosinstall rosinstall
>> 0.5.30 released on pypi, which should now work with the pre-release
>> version or Fuerte.
>>
>> Hopefully the change in the REP should remain invisible to users, and
>> thus
>> affect nobody in their work, but it would still be nice for a few people
>> to review the draft.
>>
>> cheers,
>>  Thibault
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>