Hi all,
/*Rich Mattes <richmattes(a)gmail.com>*/ wrote on 08/25/2010 9:07:23 AM +0450:
On 8/24/2010 9:36 PM, Tim Niemueller wrote:
[...]
The discussions we had in IRC the last time we met about creating some
sort of 'game' environment for Player and Stage fit right into the
educational goals discussed above. Tutorials and examples like Tim is
suggesting would serve as a great jumping-off point for people to get
started with robot programming. The availability of Python bindings to
Player is also a boon to the effort; Python is a very easy language to
pick up, is script-able, and can even be used interactively in the shell
to control a bot (if you can type fast enough!) I'm happy to spend some
time getting a plan together and running it by the rest of the Player
devs, but I think that the goals of the SIG and upstream align quite a bit.
Nice to
see some non-spam activity again ;)
I fully agree with having the demo program(s) inside the existing
upstream projects (or creating an upstream project), since I think it is
a better place to maintain such demos. As Tim said, the demo has many
areas to advance so it'll (hopefully) become a real project rather than
some few lines of code as a trivial package maintained by a package
maintainer.
I'll think about the questions Tim asked in the last part of his email
and answer later :P
Good luck,
Hedayat
As far as the live cd, I think we should obviously plan on including
as
many of the robotics packages as we can (mrpt, rcss*, opencv,p/s/g,
gearbox, fawkes, urg, etc) on top of the base desktop image. We can
strip out things like office, games and productivity, but adding the
-devel packages and devtools is going to take up quite a bit of space.
I'd also like to make sure that all of our packages are aligned with the
latest upstream releases, and put a lot of effort into upstreaming any
of the changes or enhancements we make. Finally, we should definitely
submit it as a Fedora feature once we get our act together; F15/F16
timeframe is probably realistic.
Regards,
Rich