From jack.oquin@gmail.com Tue Sep 20 20:33:47 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: ros-sig-drivers@code.ros.org Delivered-To: ros-sig-drivers@code.ros.org Received: from mail-wy0-f169.google.com (mail-wy0-f169.google.com [74.125.82.169]) by pub5.willowgarage.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CF9A2EC68A for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 20:33:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by wyf22 with SMTP id 22so762405wyf.28 for ; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 20:33:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=wsRVF3+gIpX4oO88TyigA85wpczvf04+y8TTsLDPM5g=; b=hvp2/IWEU3wdbX5PmyRHqn1zyCt6YNO0S1ghDwRiRz2nwFfQ4KB0Vj24kS+EGwd1a6 hgWydPJZY+NXE0toHHHChYAUqr0IkwdgRPXMRjtgopgKgi1ul3JB/leNc3RLT89zP+1V pTloL5zxURmugNSOmaEoleIJjuuBRh4/GpBE4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.138.142 with SMTP id a14mr1587200wej.63.1316576025211; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 20:33:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.179.129 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Sep 2011 20:33:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:33:45 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Jack O'Quin" To: Eric Perko Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: ros-sig-drivers@code.ros.org Subject: Re: [Ros-sig-drivers] unary stack packaging X-BeenThere: ros-sig-drivers@code.ros.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: ROS drivers special interest group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 03:33:47 -0000 On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Eric Perko wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Jack O'Quin wrote= : >> Are there other drivers we should repackage in this way? Let's try to >> compile a (fairly) complete list. > > Here's my list (I envision the current stack would continue on in some so= rt > of "meta-package" manner as discussed above): > Laser Drivers: > > Hokuyo_node goes to a unary stack > Sick_driver stack that contains the sicktoolbox and sicktoolbox_wrapper > packages. That makes sense to me. We need to contact the maintainers to see if they want to do it. > IMU Drivers: > > We've only got the Microstrain driver, but I think keeping around an > imu_drivers meta-package would be consistent with the laser and camera > drivers. > > > Is there any intention of splitting the joystick_drivers into unary stack= s? They can if they want. Thoughts, Melonee? My feeling is that driver stacks which seldom change probably do not need to repackage. The reason camera_drivers should is because there are always a lot of bug fixes and new features in every release, and it becomes awkward to synchronize releases for all those drivers at once. Since users normally only depend on drivers for the specific devices they use, that synchronization is artificial and unnecessary. We should be able to release each camera driver when it is ready, without affecting the others. --=20 =A0joq