From ros-users-bounces@code.ros.org Sat Feb 11 10:46:45 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: www-data@code.ros.org Delivered-To: www-data@code.ros.org Received: from pub5.willowgarage.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pub5.willowgarage.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A581768162; Sat, 11 Feb 2012 10:46:45 -0800 (PST) X-Original-To: ros-users@code.ros.org Delivered-To: ros-users@code.ros.org Received: from proto.iheartengineering.com (li65-186.members.linode.com [97.107.135.186]) by pub5.willowgarage.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7BBB668159 for ; Sat, 11 Feb 2012 10:46:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from dsl254-120-217.nyc1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([216.254.120.217] helo=[192.168.1.249]) by proto.iheartengineering.com with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RwHy6-00039x-Qd for ros-users@code.ros.org; Sat, 11 Feb 2012 18:46:42 +0000 From: Bill Morris To: User discussions In-Reply-To: References: Organization: I Heart Engineering Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:46:42 -0500 Message-ID: <1328986002.1964.365.camel@kia.secret.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.28.3 Subject: Re: [ros-users] REP 122, REP 123, and REP 124: changes to ROS for ROS Fuerte X-BeenThere: ros-users@code.ros.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list Reply-To: bill@iheartengineering.com, User discussions List-Id: User discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ros-users-bounces@code.ros.org Errors-To: ros-users-bounces@code.ros.org On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 14:01 -0800, Brian Gerkey wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Jack O'Quin wrote: > > As an old Unix developer I have a somewhat visceral reaction against > > putting machine-dependent binaries inside a share directory. I suppose > > it's too late to fix that for Fuerte, but it's just wrong, and almost > > anything would be better. This will not be easy to fix in a future > > release. > > > > There is no obvious choice for an alternative. Although "/lib" mostly > > contains libraries, there are actually quite a few executables in its > > subdirectories, and many more under "/usr/lib". So, I suggest > > something like "lib/ros/" in place of > > "share/". Another alternative might be "opt" (or > > just making something up), but "lib" seems better to me. > > > > Using "share/ros/" for genuine > > architecture-independent files (.xml, .yaml, etc.) is good, but not a > > requirement. There are advantages to keeping most or all installed > > files for a single package together. > > You have a point there. We could easily go into > "lib/". We'd just have point ROS_PACKAGE_PATH to > lib instead of share, and CMake will find things in > "lib//cmake" the same as it will in > "share//cmake." > > Now, if we want to go into "lib/ros/," then we'd > have to play with the CMake infrastructure some to make things like > 'find_package(roscpp)' work properly. How important do you think it > is to have the intermediate "ros" directory in there? Putting binaries in share seems strange to me as well. I would prefer something like the bsd concept of libexec [1] or lib/ros/. lib/ seems like it will cause namespace problems and clutter. ... [1] http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/dirstructure.html -- Bill Morris I Heart Engineering http://www.iheartengineering.com <3 _______________________________________________ ros-users mailing list ros-users@code.ros.org https://code.ros.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-users