On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Eric Perko <
wisesage5001@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Jack O'Quin <jack.oquin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to collect a list of all the driver packages we intend to
>> convert to unary stacks.
>>
>> I believe all the camera_drivers stack could be repackaged. That would
>> leave the camera_drivers stack, itself, empty except for dependencies
>> on all the unary stacks for external compatibility.
>
> +1. I like using the camera_drivers stack as a sort of "meta-package" to
> pull in all of the officially support camera drivers. But at that point,
> maybe it would be best to just supply a .rosinstall file and build a .deb
> file that depends on all of the officially support drivers instead of
> maintaining an actual stack in SVN.
My current thinking is that the camera_drivers stack serves a useful
purpose as a documentation node to collect meta-information about
camera drivers in general. I'd hate to lose that.
Keeping a stub "meta-stack" for that purpose seems worthwhile to me.
I'd like to hear other ideas about it. Maybe there are better
solutions. Can you suggest any, Melonee?
>> Are there other drivers we should repackage in this way? Let's try to
>> compile a (fairly) complete list.
I see no compelling reason to repackage all the drivers. It should be
done only when and where it helps the developers or users.
--
joq
(text/plain)