On 05/29/2012 11:12 AM, Rich Mattes wrote:
That's great to hear! Before you get too far, I've already
started
by packaging some of the helper utilities[1]. I think they're about
ready to post for review, which I can do tonight if you don't see any
issues. If you would like to coordinate efforts, we also have a wiki
page[2] started to track progress, we can convert it into a table with
package names, versions, packaging status, and review status, then we
can branch out and get all the specfiles written.
Cool. Here's what I have packaged right now, we should definitely be on
the same page with any overlap.
catkin-0.3.29-1.fc17.noarch
ros-fuerte-actionlib-1.8.4-1.fc17.x86_64
ros-fuerte-base-1.8.7-1.fc17.x86_64
ros-fuerte-bond-core-1.6.3-1.fc17.x86_64
ros-fuerte-bullet-2.79-1.fc17.x86_64
ros-fuerte-common-msgs-1.8.5-1.fc17.x86_64
ros-fuerte-dynamic-reconfigure-1.4.0-1.fc17.x86_64
ros-fuerte-filters-1.6.0-1.fc17.x86_64
ros-fuerte-gencpp-0.3.0-1.fc17.x86_64
ros-fuerte-genlisp-0.3.0-1.fc17.x86_64
ros-fuerte-genmsg-0.3.5-1.fc17.x86_64
ros-fuerte-genpy-0.3.3-1.fc17.x86_64
ros-fuerte-geometry-1.8.0-1.fc17.x86_64
ros-fuerte-image-common-1.8.0-1.fc17.x86_64
ros-fuerte-nodelet-core-1.6.5-1.fc17.x86_64
ros-fuerte-orocos-kinematics-dynamics-0.2.3-1.fc17.x86_64
ros-fuerte-pluginlib-1.8.0-2.fc17.x86_64
ros-fuerte-ros-1.8.7-1.fc17.x86_64
ros-fuerte-ros-comm-1.8.9-1.fc17.x86_64
ros-fuerte-roscpp-core-0.2.3-1.fc17.x86_64
ros-fuerte-rospack-2.0.12-1.fc17.x86_64
ros-fuerte-std-msgs-0.4.6-1.fc17.x86_64
Are your helper utilities still relevant in the fuerte universe? I'm
still wrapping my head around it. I know catkin is needed, but I seem to
recall that the others may be obsolete.
It looks like the version of PCL that fuerte is including is marked
as
1.5.2[2]. Given the date in the package name, it looks like they
probably took an svn snapshot[3] on that date and bumped the version
from the latest release(1.5.1). I agree it would be nice if they posted
source packages with the binary packages in their ubuntu repositories.
Are you having trouble getting things to build with the PCL packages we
have in Fedora right now?
Yes, sadly. It seems like the default PCL headers in 1.5.1 conflict with
the ROS headers in some pretty nasty ways. You should be able to
reproduce this pretty easily by just trying to build perception_pcl (if
you need my package set to resolve deps, I can toss them up somewhere).
Haven't tried PCL trunk yet, but I will do so shortly.
~tom
==
Fedora Project