On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Eric Perko <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Jack O'Quin <email@example.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.
This message was posted to the following mailing lists: