#44821: include rti-connext-7.3.0 in base.yaml#44918
#44821: include rti-connext-7.3.0 in base.yaml#44918nuclearsandwich merged 10 commits intoros:masterfrom
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for sending a pull request to ROS distro!
This is an automated tool that helps check your pull request for correctness.
This tool checks a number of attributes associated with your ROS package and generates a report that helps our reviewers merge your pull request in a timely fashion. Here are a few things to consider when sending adding or updating a package to ROS Distro.
ROS Distro includes a very helpful CONTRIBUTING.md file that we recommend reading if it is your first time submitting a package.
Please also read the ROS Distro review guidelines which summarizes this release process.
ROS Distro Considerations
- ROS Distributions are created using REP-134 Standards Track as a guide.
- Your package name should comply to REP-144 ROS Package Naming
- Your package must build for all platforms and architectures on the ROS buildfarm. See REP-2000 ROS Releases and Supported Platforms for all supported platforms for your ROS Distro.
- Your package must contain an OSI approved license. Your
package.xmlfile must also include that license in a machine readable format. See REP-149 Package Manifest Format Three Specification for additional details. - A publicly available, open source, repository for your ROS package.
- While not required, we recommend that you create an account for ROS Discourse and subscribe to the appropriate release topic.
- If you would like, you may join our Discord Server and ask questions in the
#infra-helpchannel.
Package Considerations
Having your package included in a ROS Distro is a badge of quality, and we recommend that package developers strive to create packages of the highest quality. We recommend package developers review the following resources before submitting their package.
- REP-2004 Package Quality Declaration-- The ROS 2 TSC has created a quality rating system for ROS packages. These ratings should serve as a guide for package developers. We recommend package developers achieve a quality level of three or higher.
- Documentation -- it is recommended that ROS packages include an extensive README.md file, and API level documentation using the Sphinx documentation system.
- Maintainer Responsibilities -- the ROS 2 documentation includes a guide to ROS package maintainer responsibilities that summarizes your responsibilities as an open source maintainer. While we do not enforce these requirements on package maintainers they should be considered best practices.
- We recommend that your package should strive to conform to the ROS 2 Developer Guide and the ROS 2 Style Guide.
Need Help?
Please post your questions to Robotics Stack Exchange or refer to the #infra-help channel on our Discord server.
For changes related to rosdep:
- ✅ New rosdep keys are named appropriately
- ❌ There are problems with explicitly provided platforms:
- One or more explicitly provided platforms are no longer supported
For changes related to yamllint:
- ❌ One or more linter violations were added to YAML files
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For changes related to rosdep:
- ✅ New rosdep keys are named appropriately
- ❌ There are problems with explicitly provided platforms:
- One or more explicitly provided platforms are no longer supported
For changes related to yamllint:
- ✅ All new lines of YAML pass linter checks
…ntains a license file to be used out of the box by ros users
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For changes related to rosdep:
- 📝 There are problems with the names of new rosdep keys:
- New key names should typically match the Ubuntu package name
- ✅ Platforms for new rosdep rules are valid
For changes related to yamllint:
- ✅ All new lines of YAML pass linter checks
… with RTI evaluation packages
|
@nuclearsandwich do we need to address this PR before RMW freeze? |
|
One approval from me, I'll let @nuclearsandwich get the second. |
rosdep/base.yaml
Outdated
| ubuntu: | ||
| noble: [rti-connext-dds-7.3.0-ros] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In order to maintain forward compatibility we usually invert the definition here:
| ubuntu: | |
| noble: [rti-connext-dds-7.3.0-ros] | |
| ubuntu: | |
| '*': [rti-connext-dds-7.3.0-ros] | |
| jammy: null | |
| focal: null |
This will allow us to use this package in 26.04 without requiring re-definition. The method by which we currently populate bootstrap repositories will insure this package is propagated to 26.04 when we first create it. However, if the Connext maintainers prefer explicitly defining which distros are supported for each rosdep definition I'm alright with that.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let’s keep it as simple as possible. Some of the changes I made were in response to issues reported by GitHub Actions, so I was just trying to keep things compliant with the “tests” until I could get a proper human review. 🙂
Thanks for the detailed explanation @nuclearsandwich
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@nuclearsandwich Just a quick question to avoid any issues—can you confirm whether I should use rti-connext-dds-7.3.0 instead of rti-connext-dds-7.3.0-ros in this PR in rti_connext_dds_cmake_module/package.xml?
…ros will be keep as a implementation detail)
use rti-connext-dds-7.3.0-ros since this is the debian package name is going to be installed. Co-authored-by: Steven! Ragnarök <122943030+nuclearsandwich-ai@users.noreply.github.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For changes related to rosdep:
- 📝 There are problems with the names of new rosdep keys:
- New key names should typically match the Ubuntu package name
- ✅ Platforms for new rosdep rules are valid
For changes related to yamllint:
- ✅ All new lines of YAML pass linter checks
| ubuntu: | ||
| '*': [rti-connext-dds-6.0.1] | ||
| bionic: null | ||
| rti-connext-dds-7.3.0: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This key does not match the Ubuntu package name
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@nuclearsandwich @mjcarroll it is fine tho have this "warning" ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, this is fine. I think it's better to stick to the package name historical convention for now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For changes related to rosdep:
- 📝 There are problems with the names of new rosdep keys:
- New key names should typically match the Ubuntu package name
- ✅ Platforms for new rosdep rules are valid
For changes related to yamllint:
- ✅ All new lines of YAML pass linter checks
If you're making a new release with bloom please use bloom to create the pull request automatically (except for the naming review request which must be made manually).
If you've already run the release bloom has a
--pull-request-onlyoption you can use.-->**As I understand it, previous updates to the rti-connext-dds packages were handled by OSRF—we provided the binaries, and they added them to the ROS bootstrap repositories. @mjcarroll can you confirm that? **
Please add the following dependency to the rosdep database.
Package name:
rti-connext-dds-7.3.0
Package Upstream Source:
TODO (waiting clarification from OSRF on how to proceed)
Purpose of using this:
This new package will bring new features, improved stability, and bug fixes compared to rti-connext-dds-6.0.1. We’ve also already had ROS 2 users requesting this update.
Distro packaging links:
Links to Distribution Packages
Please Add This Package to be indexed in the rosdistro.
ROSDISTRO NAME
The source is here:
http://sourcecode_url
Checks