On 09.03.2011 22:53, Martin Langhoff wrote:
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Tim Niemueller tim@niemueller.de wrote:
On 09.03.2011 19:33, Martin Langhoff wrote:
On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Tim Niemueller tim@niemueller.de wrote:
That still is way to vague. I suggest creating a package per robot/board/platform/sensor/actuator. If there is a canonical software
We are talking about 1 package for a 1-line file. That's very OCD :-)
One single package simplifies maintenance for this maintainer, reduces metadata load on fedora infra, cuts your "yum downloading metadata" times.
I know, but one catch-all package is just not the proper way.
Well that's just an unfounded statement.
I have an NXT, a GoGo board, a Pico/Scratch board all on my desk right now. I'll get my hands on a wedo and arduino kit soon.
The pico board is a generic sensor board. People could use it for their physics project to measure temperature or whatnot. It's not robotic per se. Arduino is also on the wiki page, which is even less robot-specific. I'd classify such boards not by their number of inputs or outputs, but what they are used for. And many of these kits are open-ended. Some at least have robotics as their primary purpose, but the only way to properly group them is "microcontroller boards", but even then they are so diverse that I'd argue they do not easily fit under one umbrella, and certainly not robotics.
It also still neglects that you are looking at a tiny fraction of robotics, namely toy robotics for young education. But serious research robots or more powerful platforms are neglected by giving this udev rules package such a vague name.
Come up with sensible classification and names, which is narrowly focused on the purpose of the packages and does take into account that it does not represent the whole field of robot hardware, and not even a large fraction.
Tim