[ros-users] REP for rosdistro files

Thibault Kruse kruset at in.tum.de
Sat Feb 23 10:20:13 UTC 2013

Hi Paul,

can the REP please explain a bit the differences to the current 
rosdistro files? Also whether the current format can be automatically 
transformed into the new format, or what actions would be required for 

Reading the REP, I found myself scrolling often between the definitions 
of the files and their examples. Can the examples maybe go into the same 
section as their definition?

Currently distribution files have an item release-name and type, e.g. 
(fuerte + gbp), (fuerte + devel). Did that information move to the 
master file, or are the types not used anymore?

Currently items in the fuerte distribution files list the repository SCM 
type, why is that missing now? I could live with git being the default, 
but why restrict ourselves to git?

For the affected tools, it would be good to state in one or two 
sentences how these tools need changing. I miss rosdoc / rosdoc-lite there.

Like Ken, I'd get rid of the whole File Format section.

The gbp-repos item is missing from the examples.

"type: ros-distributions
type: ros-distribution
type: ros-build"

Why do we need those tags at all? I don't see who would consume that 

Will this also affect cturtle to fuerte distributions?

In the Distribution file: "version: version number packages will be 
released for". Am I right that this also has to be a tag or branch in 
git? If so, state it. Also if we still support svn, do we also need to 
specify the version here? (Because with svntags and branches are encoded 
in the url)

Regarding build file whitelists, can we have a format that allows to git 
repo names instead of packages, to avoid duplication?

Why are test-build and release build defined in different files, how 
does that help preventing missing release files in the tests? Can you 
also give the example of a test file to show the differences to a build 
file for the same distro, if there is any? If there is none, why would 
we need a second file?

In your example, I see the master file references multiple build files 
for different architectures:

release-build: [releases/groovy-build-ubuntu.yaml, releases/groovy-build-arm.yaml]

yet then in the build file example, I see multiple architectures 
mentioned as well:

   oneiric: [amd64, i386]
   precise: [amd64, i386, armel]

How does that work together?

Also, the relationship between the target item in the distribution file 
and in the respective build and test files seems a bit clumsy. What 
happens to the architectures in the distribution file, e.g. what 
heppanes if there is a platform mentioned in a distribution file but in 
none of the build files?

"A distribution file listing a couple of repositories...". Maybe that 
should be "All the repositories involved in the distribution". UNöess 
you mean the example.

Can the REP please explain a bit more how notification of maintainers 
works, and why we need this and the feature to disable it? E.g. why can 
this not be selected per repository?

I'd like the rosdistro distribution files to all have a header comment 
stating the purpose of the file and explaining briefly the syntax, maybe 
with a reference to the REP. The header should explain things like how 
the packages item works in distribition file, and how to use anything 
else than git.

A nicer yaml header with the used yaml version also looks like this:
If we want to use YAML1.1, that is.


On 23.02.2013 06:36, Paul Mathieu wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> Here is a tentative REP-137 draft, which gives a rationale and a 
> specification for rosdistro files, with the intent of formalizing what 
> was not.
> These files are used by the release process as well as the buildfarm. 
> The mid-term goal is to ease binary package builds, especially by 
> custom buildfarms.
> You can find this draft REP here:
> https://github.com/po1/rep/blob/rep137/rep-0137.rst
> And the pull request is here:
> https://github.com/ros-infrastructure/rep/pull/27
> Please note that the REP still lacks some tiny bits here and there. 
> Any good will is more than welcome to contribute.
> Thanks,
> --
> Paul Mathieu
> _______________________________________________
> ros-users mailing list
> ros-users at code.ros.org
> https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ros.org/pipermail/ros-users/attachments/20130223/c3a8edb7/attachment-0004.html>

More information about the ros-users mailing list