ROS Fuerte packages up for review

[Rich Mattes]

Hi all,

I've started the process of cleaning up my ROS Fuerte packages and 
submitting them for review.  Currently, the following are posted (in 
rough build order:)

rospack:  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927458
ros:  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927461
roscpp_core: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927462
python-genmsg:  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927470
python-gencpp:  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927473
python-genlisp:  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927475
python-genpy:  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927478

Please have a look and let me know if you have any comments or 
suggestions (especially on package naming.)  I'm still not sure if these 
names are too generic or not.  Where applicable, each package Provides: 
ros-%{packagename} as well, and those are the names I'm using when 
another package Requires: them.

The next package I'm working (std_msgs) has a really generic name, I 
think I'm going to call it ros-std_msgs before I put it up.  I know the 
packaging guidelines discourage using underscores in package names, but 
I think since that's what upstream is using that it's ok (if I'm reading 
that guideline right)

I'll work on getting the rest of the packages up in the coming days.

Rich

[Ankur Sinha]

On Mon, 2013-03-25 at 23:03 -0400, Rich Mattes wrote:
> Hi all,

Hi Rich,
> I've started the process of cleaning up my ROS Fuerte packages and 
> submitting them for review.  Currently, the following are posted (in 
> rough build order:)
>
> rospack:  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927458
> ros:  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927461
> roscpp_core: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927462
> python-genmsg:  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927470
> python-gencpp:  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927473
> python-genlisp:  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927475
> python-genpy:  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927478

Yep. My mail is littered with ros packages review mails from bugzilla ;)
> Please have a look and let me know if you have any comments or 
> suggestions (especially on package naming.)  I'm still not sure if these 
> names are too generic or not.  Where applicable, each package Provides: 
> ros-%{packagename} as well, and those are the names I'm using when 
> another package Requires: them.
>
> The next package I'm working (std_msgs) has a really generic name, I 
> think I'm going to call it ros-std_msgs before I put it up.  I know the 
> packaging guidelines discourage using underscores in package names, but 
> I think since that's what upstream is using that it's ok (if I'm reading 
> that guideline right)
>
> I'll work on getting the rest of the packages up in the coming days.

I'll review as many as possible. I haven't anything else fedora related
in my cycles at the moment. Thanks for putting up the packages. If you
do need me to package anything (and then we can swap reviews, which
might make it quicker), do let me know. I'll wait for you to tell me
what to package since you have a much better understanding of the ros
dep tree etc. :)

[Rich Mattes]

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 11:27 PM, Ankur Sinha  wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-03-25 at 23:03 -0400, Rich Mattes wrote:
> > Hi all,
>
> Hi Rich,
> > I've started the process of cleaning up my ROS Fuerte packages and
> > submitting them for review.  Currently, the following are posted (in
> > rough build order:)
> >
> > rospack:  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927458
> > ros:  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927461
> > roscpp_core: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927462
> > python-genmsg:  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927470
> > python-gencpp:  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927473
> > python-genlisp:  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927475
> > python-genpy:  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927478
>
> Yep. My mail is littered with ros packages review mails from bugzilla ;)

Yeah all of the reviews require catkin to continue, so I blocked them
against the catkin review bug.  Sorry about the spam!
> > Please have a look and let me know if you have any comments or
> > suggestions (especially on package naming.)  I'm still not sure if these
> > names are too generic or not.  Where applicable, each package Provides:
> > ros-%{packagename} as well, and those are the names I'm using when
> > another package Requires: them.
> >
> > The next package I'm working (std_msgs) has a really generic name, I
> > think I'm going to call it ros-std_msgs before I put it up.  I know the
> > packaging guidelines discourage using underscores in package names, but
> > I think since that's what upstream is using that it's ok (if I'm reading
> > that guideline right)
> >
> > I'll work on getting the rest of the packages up in the coming days.
>
> I'll review as many as possible. I haven't anything else fedora related
> in my cycles at the moment. Thanks for putting up the packages. If you
> do need me to package anything (and then we can swap reviews, which
> might make it quicker), do let me know. I'll wait for you to tell me
> what to package since you have a much better understanding of the ros
> dep tree etc. :)

There's like 4 packages left for the fuerte underlay.  I already have
them made, so I think I'll just trudge through them this week and then
we can start figuring out how to package stacks (tf, geometry,
perception_pcl, nodelet, etc.)

Rich

[Ankur Sinha]

On Tue, 2013-03-26 at 18:34 -0400, Rich Mattes wrote:
> Yeah all of the reviews require catkin to continue, so I blocked them
> against the catkin review bug.  Sorry about the spam!

Hi Rich,

I've approved catkin and reviewed a few other ros related packages. I've
picked up ones that aren't dependent on others. I'll go up the dep tree
from these leaf nodes.

I was just wondering if we're going to name the packages ros-fuerte-XXX
or not? The current packages are all just python-XXX or just XXX. We'll
have quite a lot of trouble if we do groovy later, won't we?

Btw, I've been trying to build groovy on my f18 from source. I build the
base and the ros-desktop stack, but I'm not sure how well it works. I
couldn't get gazebo to work when I compiled it in ROS style.

[Rich Mattes]

On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Ankur Sinha  wrote:
> Hi Rich,
>
> I've approved catkin and reviewed a few other ros related packages. I've
> picked up ones that aren't dependent on others. I'll go up the dep tree
> from these leaf nodes.

Thanks!  I'll have a look at those tonight.  Now that catkin is done we can
really get things moving.
> I was just wondering if we're going to name the packages ros-fuerte-XXX
> or not? The current packages are all just python-XXX or just XXX. We'll
> have quite a lot of trouble if we do groovy later, won't we?

My thinking was to not do fuerte and groovy as parallel installable in the
core OS, since sharing /usr/share on the ROS_PACKAGE_PATH would be a giant
mess.  Instead, I was thinking we would have one supported rosdistro for
each Fedora.  Currently it looks like Fedora 18 and 19 will have fuerte,
and we can work on upgrading rawhide to groovy (or hydro once it ships)
before Fedora 20 is released.  We could probably make the case to upgrade
Fedora 19 to groovy post-release, but I'd prefer not to since it's such a
giant change.  That my mean we jump from fuerte to hydro, but I'm ok with
that.

I've been naming the ros modules according to what I think the packaging
guidelines dictate because of the above, but the current use of python-xxxx
vs ros-xxxx vs xxxx is definitely up for debate.  Basically, if something
only contains python modules I try to name it python-xxxx.  If something
has a uselessly generic name (like "std_msgs"), I name it ros-xxxx to avoid
confusion.  Other than that, I just stick with the upstream stack name
(which usually contains ros somewhere in it anyway.)  I'm creating a
virtual Provides: for ros-stackname for every package anyway, so "yum
install ros-*"  will do the right thing.  Once ROS is packaged, we can
create a comps.xml group for it, or add it to the "robotics" comps group.

In parallel, I think we should take an approach similar to Willow Garage
for supporting other rosdistros.  Namely, creating packages that dump the
stacks to /opt/ros/<rosdistro>, but using system dependencies wherever
possible.  This is the approach I started with the ros-fuerte copr I
started.  I'm also using the ros-<rosdistro>-<stackname> for all of those
packages so you can yum install ros-fuerte-* and get the packages that
install to /opt, and they won't overlap or conflict with the fedora
supported ros in /usr.
> Btw, I've been trying to build groovy on my f18 from source. I build the
> base and the ros-desktop stack, but I'm not sure how well it works. I
> couldn't get gazebo to work when I compiled it in ROS style.

I had to modify Gazebo's setup.sh script to locate OGRE's shared libraries
properly when I created the Fedora pacakge, maybe there's some of that
configuration that you're missing.  ROS doesn't understand /usr/lib64; a
lot of problems stem from there.

Rich