[ros-users] Compiling and installing ROS in Debian Squeeze

Thu Oct 4 09:23:32 UTC 2012

On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 1:50 AM, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda
<leo at alaxarxa.net>wrote:

> Hi Tully,
>
> A Dijous 04 Octubre 2012, Tully Foote va escriure:
> > Thanks for contributing these resources It will help people looking to
> use
> > debian greatly.
>
> I need to make some documentation. I hope soon.
>
> > If you'd like we could also work with you to try to merge debian support
> > upstream.  Our whole infrastructure could be extended to support debian
> > codenames as well as ubuntu ones. We don't have time to actively support
> > Debian releases but patches in that direction would be accepted.  Related
> > to this we could consider providing your backports in the main ROS repos
> as
> > we do for Ubuntu.
>
> Perfect, my propose is to create some kind of debian-robotics derivative in
> the way to install easily ros/orocos/ whatever robotics software in a
> debian
> distro. I manage a group of boxes in a robotics' lab and it's a pain to
> maintain ROS in this boxes. It's easy (I doubt it also ...) if you have a
> ubuntu box and a monouser (or few users) but a multiuser box is ... uff.
>
> >
> > Jack's spot on with respect to PCL.  The problem is that PCL standalone
> > defines symbols which collide with the ROS messages.  This is an artifact
> > of the early development process, and can't be fixed without an api
> > breaking change on either side.
>
> thanks for the explanation. Now it's more clear.
>
> > To build the same version as in ROS see
> > this repository [1] It is a git-buildpackage repository with all the tags
> > generated for Ubuntu, and can easily be extended for other debian
> codenames
> > into sourcedebs.
>
> Ok I don't understand this. Are you saying that the repo [1] has a version
> of
> the perception package that could compile with a stand-alone version of
> pcl?
>
> Otherwise it's not easy (at least for me) to create a debian (pure Debian,
> not
> Ubuntu) package from that sources. It requires the catkin package and by
> now,
> waiting the fhs transition it's not easy to prepare.
>

Sorry I pointed to the wrong repo.  This is the repo with the version of
pcl integrated with ROS which we're using for groovy and fuerte now.  It's
installs in close to fhs style.  We've generated debian control files for
ubuntu, but you can use git-buildpackage's command generate-debian for
generating any of the pure debian codenames as well.

https://github.com/ros-gbp/pcl-release

>
> <rant mode>
> It's really so complicate to have a full ROS system in a no ubuntu box!!!
> </rant mode>

It's just as complicated on Ubuntu, we've just jumped through the hoops
already ;-)

Tully

>

Regards,
>
> Leo
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Jack O'Quin <jack.oquin at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda
> > > <leo at alaxarxa.net> wrote:
> > > > A Dimecres 03 Octubre 2012, Rich Mattes va escriure:
> > > >> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 6:18 PM, Leopold Palomo Avellaneda
> > > >> <leo at alaxarxa.net>wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Hi,
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > First of all I have noticed that there are several packages that
> has
> a
> > > >> > dependency a pcl package, when there's no pcl package, but
> there's a
> > > > system
> > > >> > dependency pcl. So, I have to change several manifest files from
> > > >> >
> > > >> >  <depend package="pcl" />
> > > >> >
> > > >> > to
> > > >> >   <rosdep name="pcl" />
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Also, I have not be able to found which version of pcl is needed
> for
> > > > fuerte
> > > >> > (1.5, 1.6) With 1.6 it doesn't compile.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >> We had a lot of fun trying to figure this out in Fedora[1] as well.
>  As
> > > it
> > > >> turns out, you can't use the upstream PCL release for Fuerte, you
> need
> a
> > > >> custom branch of PCL hosted on github[2] which contains extra
> message
> > > >> definitions and stack metadata.  I raised the issue upstream[3] and
> it
> > > >> looks like we have to wait for PCL 2.0 for ROS to build against PCL
> as
> a
> > > >> stand-alone library instead of requiring that PCL be modified.
>  We're
> > > going
> > > >> to try to patch Fedora's system PCL to make it a hybrid ROS stack
> and
> > > >> stand-alone library so that ROS is usable until this situation is
> > > resolved.
> > > >> It seems this issue is pretty[4] common[5].
> > > >
> > > > Well, we want something similar. A PCL version stand-alone that
> could be
> > > used
> > > > by ros.
> > > >
> > > > I have seen the github code, and it doesn't seems that use the ROS
> stuff,
> > > > although is required by cmake. From a ROS full installation (188)
> > > packages I
> > > > have compiled 106, considering that pcl is not built or installed.
> > > >
> > > > I hope to have something functional some day ...
> > >
> > > So do I.
> > >
> > > Many people have stumbled over this problem in Fuerte. And, I fear it
> > > may not get better in Groovy. I really hope I end up being wrong about
> > > that.
> > >
> > > I think PCL must have fallen in the cracks during the Fuerte release.
> > > Many of us expected catkin to solve the problem of building
> > > stand-alone PCL with the ROS message tools. That only half worked.
> > > Thanks to catkin, PCL can now optionally be built to use standard ROS
> > > messages, such as sensor_msgs/PointCloud2. But unfortunately, PCL also
> > > defines several ROS messages of its own: ModelCoefficients,
> > > PointIndices, PolygonMesh, and Vertices, which cannot reasonably be
> > > handled by the stand-alone PCL build. The changes to the PCL 1.5
> > > sources were too large, messy and complex to merge into their
> > > stand-alone tree.
> > >
> > > To ship a working Ubuntu version for Fuerte, the wg-debs/pcl github
> > > project was created. Unfortunately, the main purpose of wg-debs is to
> > > add the Debian rules and source control for several Ubuntu packages
> > > hosted on packages.ros.org because they are necessary rosdep
> > > dependencies. Getting that to work for PCL involved significant
> > > additional source changes, mostly defining those additional messages
> > > and using them in PCL.
> > >
> > > That mostly solved the problem for Ubuntu systems. But, it leaves no
> > > good solution for other Linux distros, Mac OSX, ARM boards, other
> > > embedded systems, or anyone wanting to build everything from source.
> > >
> > > When PCL 2.0 comes out, it will only use PCL-defined types, no ROS
> > > messages. So, these problems should eventually go away. Until then,
> > > the ROS community needs to provide a PCL 1.x version that can be built
> > > and installed from source on any of our target platforms. Then, the
> > > Ubuntu Debian packages should be built from that. Unfortunately, that
> > > will demand considerable maintenance effort including documentation,
> > > with active Q&A support both here and on the PCL forums.
> > >
> > > Perhaps there is some clever way to repackage those additional ROS
> > > messages into a catkin ROS package that a stand-alone PCL could
> > > optionally build with, as it already does with std_msgs and
> > > sensor_msgs when USE_ROS is specified for building. But, that seems to
> > > be beyond my current catkin and PCL skills.
> > > --
> > >  joq
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > ros-users mailing list
> > > ros-users at code.ros.org
> > > https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tully Foote
> > tfoote at willowgarage.com
> > (650) 475-2827
> >
>
>
> --
> --
> Linux User 152692
> Catalonia
> _______________________________________________
> ros-users mailing list
> ros-users at code.ros.org
> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users
>

-- 
Tully Foote
tfoote at willowgarage.com
(650) 475-2827
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ros.org/pipermail/ros-users/attachments/20121004/6ae73dea/attachment-0004.html>