FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Packaging

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-08-2012, 09:29 PM
Spencer Jackson
 
Default Unpackaged optional dependencies

Hi, I'm currently packaging a robotics simulator called Morse
( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770740 ). Morse allows its
simulations to be interacted with via multiple middleware protocols,
including sockets, YARP, pocolibs, ROS, and a few others. Upstream has
recommended that I extract support for these protocols into separate
subpackages, which seems very reasonable. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem
that we have packages for some of these middlewares.

So, what is the best course of action? I wouldn't really object to
writing up a few more packages for these most of these optional
dependencies. However, packaging ROS might be... problematic
( http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/robotics/2011/000529.html ),
and although an employee of their backer has indicated that he
has some interest, I wouldn't be surprised if it took a while.
I suppose one option would be to strip out the unsupported middleware,
until some point in the future when there is support, then
incrementally adding subpackages for each protocol.

Any advice would be much appreciated.

Spencer
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 01-09-2012, 12:28 PM
Denis Arnaud
 
Default Unpackaged optional dependencies

Hi Spencer,

2012/1/9 <packaging-request@lists.fedoraproject.org>



Hi, I'm currently packaging a robotics simulator called Morse

( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770740 ). Morse allows its

simulations to be interacted with via multiple middleware protocols,

including sockets, YARP, pocolibs, ROS, and a few others. Upstream has

recommended that I extract support for these protocols into separate

subpackages, which seems very reasonable. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem

that we have packages for some of these middlewares.



Any advice would be much appreciated.

We had a similar issue for the packaging of SOCI (http://soci.sourceforge.net, https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/soci), which is an abstraction layer on top of third-party database back-ends/libraries, including some not well supported by Fedora or even proprietary (Oracle). So, we used "%bcond_with oracle" rules, translating into "--with/--without oracle" options on the rpmbuild command-line. You can have a look at the RPM specification file: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=soci.git;a=blob_plain;f=soci.spec;hb=HEAD for more details. In other terms, while mainstream Fedora does not provide the Oracle sub-package, anyone can easily build the RPM if he/she has all the necessary software stack and rights to use on his/her environment.



Hope it helps.

Kind regards

Denis


--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 01-09-2012, 04:56 PM
Brennan Ashton
 
Default Unpackaged optional dependencies

On Jan 8, 2012, at 14:29, Spencer Jackson <spencerandrewjackson@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi, I'm currently packaging a robotics simulator called Morse
> ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770740 ). Morse allows its
> simulations to be interacted with via multiple middleware protocols,
> including sockets, YARP, pocolibs, ROS, and a few others. Upstream has
> recommended that I extract support for these protocols into separate
> subpackages, which seems very reasonable. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem
> that we have packages for some of these middlewares.
>
> So, what is the best course of action? I wouldn't really object to
> writing up a few more packages for these most of these optional
> dependencies. However, packaging ROS might be... problematic
> ( http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/robotics/2011/000529.html ),
> and although an employee of their backer has indicated that he
> has some interest, I wouldn't be surprised if it took a while.
> I suppose one option would be to strip out the unsupported middleware,
> until some point in the future when there is support, then
> incrementally adding subpackages for each protocol.
>
> Any advice would be much appreciated.
>
> Spencer
> --
> packaging mailing list
> packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

On a related note if a few other people wanted to help I would like to get ROS packaged correctly for fedora as I use it for a few different projects.

Thanks,
Brennan Ashton
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 01-09-2012, 05:19 PM
Josť Matos
 
Default Unpackaged optional dependencies

On 01/08/2012 10:29 PM, Spencer Jackson wrote:
> Hi, I'm currently packaging a robotics simulator called Morse
> ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770740 ). Morse allows its
> simulations to be interacted with via multiple middleware protocols,
> including sockets, YARP, pocolibs, ROS, and a few others. Upstream has
> recommended that I extract support for these protocols into separate
> subpackages, which seems very reasonable. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem
> that we have packages for some of these middlewares.
>
> So, what is the best course of action? I wouldn't really object to
> writing up a few more packages for these most of these optional
> dependencies. However, packaging ROS might be... problematic
> ( http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/robotics/2011/000529.html ),
> and although an employee of their backer has indicated that he
> has some interest, I wouldn't be surprised if it took a while.
> I suppose one option would be to strip out the unsupported middleware,
> until some point in the future when there is support, then
> incrementally adding subpackages for each protocol.
>
> Any advice would be much appreciated.
>
> Spencer

Citing Voltaire//http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire/
"Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien."/

The better is the enemy of the good.

or in other variant translations

The perfect is the enemy of the good.
The best is the enemy of the good.


Without knowing the complete details about those protocols I would say
that proceeding incrementally is a good strategy.

--
Josť Matos

--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 01-09-2012, 05:56 PM
Rich Mattes
 
Default Unpackaged optional dependencies

On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Brennan Ashton <bashton@brennanashton.com> wrote:



On a related note if a few other people wanted to help I would like to get ROS packaged correctly for fedora as I use it for a few different projects.



Thanks,

Brennan Ashton


As noted in the OP, there was some preliminary discussion at*http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/robotics/2011/000529.html*but nothing ever came of it to my knowledge. *There is indeed some interest to see ROS in Fedora's repositories, but nobody is spearheading the effort. If you'd like to continue the discussion on the robotics list we can try to coordinate and get things started there.

Rich
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 
Old 01-09-2012, 06:27 PM
Spencer Jackson
 
Default Unpackaged optional dependencies

On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 06:19:18PM +0000, Josť Matos wrote:
> On 01/08/2012 10:29 PM, Spencer Jackson wrote:
> > Hi, I'm currently packaging a robotics simulator called Morse
> > ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=770740 ). Morse allows its
> > simulations to be interacted with via multiple middleware protocols,
> > including sockets, YARP, pocolibs, ROS, and a few others. Upstream has
> > recommended that I extract support for these protocols into separate
> > subpackages, which seems very reasonable. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem
> > that we have packages for some of these middlewares.
> >
> > So, what is the best course of action? I wouldn't really object to
> > writing up a few more packages for these most of these optional
> > dependencies. However, packaging ROS might be... problematic
> > ( http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/robotics/2011/000529.html ),
> > and although an employee of their backer has indicated that he
> > has some interest, I wouldn't be surprised if it took a while.
> > I suppose one option would be to strip out the unsupported middleware,
> > until some point in the future when there is support, then
> > incrementally adding subpackages for each protocol.
> >
> > Any advice would be much appreciated.
> >
> > Spencer
>
> Citing Voltaire//http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Voltaire/
> "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien."/
>
> The better is the enemy of the good.
>
> or in other variant translations
>
> The perfect is the enemy of the good.
> The best is the enemy of the good.
>
>
> Without knowing the complete details about those protocols I would say
> that proceeding incrementally is a good strategy.
>
> --
> Josť Matos
>
> --
> packaging mailing list
> packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging

Alright, an incremental approach it is then! Thanks!

Spencer
--
packaging mailing list
packaging@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/packaging
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:58 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org