Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

euslisp_model_conversion_tester depends on rtmbuild #4

Open
garaemon opened this issue Mar 10, 2014 · 4 comments
Open

euslisp_model_conversion_tester depends on rtmbuild #4

garaemon opened this issue Mar 10, 2014 · 4 comments
Assignees

Comments

@garaemon
Copy link
Member

euslisp_model_conversion_tester depending on rtmbuild in rtmros_common repository but rtmros_repository depends on jsk_model_tools.

This is an intermediate dependency.

@k-okada
Copy link
Member

k-okada commented Mar 10, 2014

My proposal in original discussion is to include test code in the package it self so that people who update package also take care about test code. If you create separate package , usually user who update original package will not care about testing and it's maintainer's job to fix inconsistency.

Also depending model converter to rtmbuild means there significant design issue, remove this package and discuss more about how to crate test code for model conversion and package dependency design.

@garaemon
Copy link
Member Author

I agree with your strategy.

about rtmbuild, I think it should be included in upper package, for example openrtm_common

@snozawa
Copy link
Contributor

snozawa commented Mar 12, 2014

Sorry for late reply.

I also agree with your strategy.

(1) About euslisp_model_conversion

euslisp_model_conversion_tester was test code for euscollada and
it needed to depend on rtmbuild for some reasons.

However, the dependency problem has been improved by euscollada update.

My proposal in original discussion is to include test code in the package it self so that people who update package also take care about test code.

So euslisp_model_converter can be merged to euscollada package and
no longer need to depends on rtmrosbuild.

I'd like to discuss this problem and improvement in the original issue.
jsk-ros-pkg/jsk_common#219

(2) rtmros's dependency on jsk_model_tools

@garaemon
Which rtmros packages depends on jsk_model_tools?

@k-okada
Copy link
Member

k-okada commented Mar 12, 2014

opertm_common is designed for collecting "official" openrtm tools and which
is no loger repository nor package, each package have each repository in
github, openrtm_common directory is intentionally created for people who
already familiar with this name.

- git:
    uri: https://github.com/start-jsk/openrtm_aist_core
    local-name: rtm-ros-robotics/openrtm_common/openrtm_aist_core
- git:
    uri: https://github.com/start-jsk/openhrp3
    local-name: rtm-ros-robotics/openrtm_common/openhrp3
- git:
    uri: https://github.com/start-jsk/hrpsys
    local-name: rtm-ros-robotics/openrtm_common/hrpsys
- git:
    uri: https://github.com/start-jsk/rtshell_core 
    local-name: rtm-ros-robotics/openrtm_common/rtshell_core 

On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 7:54 PM, snozawa [email protected] wrote:

Sorry for late reply.

I also agree with your strategy.

  1. About euslisp_model_conversion euslisp_model_conversion_tester was
    test code for euscollada and it needed to depend on rtmbuild for some
    reasons.

However, the dependency problem has been improved by euscollada update.

My proposal in original discussion is to include test code in the package
it self so that people who update package also take care about test code.

So euslisp_model_converter can be merged to euscollada package and
no longer need to depends on rtmrosbuild.

I'd like to discuss this problem and improvement in the original issue.
jsk-ros-pkg/jsk_common#219jsk-ros-pkg/jsk_common#219

  1. rtmros's dependency on jsk_model_tools @garaemonhttps://github.com/garaemonWhich rtmros packages depends on jsk_model_tools?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/4#issuecomment-37395847
.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants