Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Oct 23, 2025. It is now read-only.

[REP-2000] Add bouncy#174

Merged
mikaelarguedas merged 6 commits intomasterfrom
ros2_bouncy
Jun 4, 2018
Merged

[REP-2000] Add bouncy#174
mikaelarguedas merged 6 commits intomasterfrom
ros2_bouncy

Conversation

@mikaelarguedas
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Adding Bouncy Bolson to REP 2000.

Sections added since REP creation:

  • middleware implementations supported
  • binary packages provided

Note that the package version for rolling distros (MacOS, Windows) may change by the time we tag the release

rep-2000.rst Outdated
| amd64 | X | X | X | N/A | N/A |
+--------------+-----------------------+------------------------------+------------------------+---------------------------+----------------------+
| arm64 | X | | | N/A | N/A |
+--------------+-----------------------+------------------------------+------------------------+---------------------------+----------------------+
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What is this table supposed to express, "required and recommended binary support" or "required and recommend support building from source"?

Is it not a requirement for Bouncy to build from source on Xenial? Or are we softening that?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What is this table supposed to express, "required and recommended binary support" or "required and recommend support building from source"?

This is supposed to reflect what combinations of plaforms/architecture OSRF provides binaries for. Maybe the title Binary packages provided: should be highligted to make it clearer.
This is why the platforms where we don't planned to ever provide binaries are marked "N/A"

I should also propagate the Recommended Support: source only to this tables header to make it more explicit.

Is it not a requirement for Bouncy to build from source on Xenial? Or are we softening that?

I'm not sure how to preperly express this, for example, it's already impossible to compile some of our packages on both platforms because of major changes in system dependencies (e.g. cartographer).

Maybe moving Xenial to the "Required support" section with a "source only" label allows to carry that "the ROS2 core should build on this platform"?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I added 40b67ca to try to clarify

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@wjwwood wjwwood left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm

@mikaelarguedas
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Merging this as is as I'm about to merge the corresponding rosdistro/ buildfarm_config PRs.

Please feel free to comment here post-merge with any comment and I'll address them in a follow-up

@mikaelarguedas mikaelarguedas merged commit 4a49801 into master Jun 4, 2018
@mikaelarguedas mikaelarguedas deleted the ros2_bouncy branch June 4, 2018 12:55
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants