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

REP 124 update strategy for package-relative executables #53

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 3, 2013

Conversation

dirk-thomas
Copy link
Member

REP 124 update strategy for package-relative executables

@ghost ghost assigned dirk-thomas Jun 26, 2013
@dirk-thomas
Copy link
Member

Updated issue title to more specific description.

@dirk-thomas
Copy link
Member

@tfoote @wjwwood Please review.

specification for an install tree.
In an install tree as well as for executables being built the
executable is looked up in the folder ``lib/ros-package-name``.
Than ``rosrun`` will crawl the package directory recursively for
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Than == Then

@jbohren
Copy link

jbohren commented Jul 12, 2013

Should the roscore launchfile be called "roscore.xml" or "roscore.launch"?

@dirk-thomas
Copy link
Member

@jbohren This pull request does not touch that part of the REP. The file is called roscore.xml and there is no need to change that.

@jbohren
Copy link

jbohren commented Jul 12, 2013

@dirk-thomas Just curious.

@jack-oquin
Copy link
Contributor

I think it's a legitimate question, Jon.

But, that name is widely deployed already. Changing it would almost certainly be more trouble than makes sense.

Eventually, probably for Indigo, we should move those $PREFIX/etc/ files somewhere else for full FHS compliance. That one may move somewhere like $PREFIX/share/ros/. At that time we could consider changing the suffix.

@dirk-thomas
Copy link
Member

Updated.

@jack-oquin
Copy link
Contributor

+1 this looks OK to me. Is it ready for acceptance?

@dirk-thomas
Copy link
Member

It is my pull request - so I would say yes. @tfoote @wjwwood Can you please review and give a plus one?

@wjwwood
Copy link
Contributor Author

wjwwood commented Oct 2, 2013

+1

1 similar comment
@tfoote
Copy link
Member

tfoote commented Oct 3, 2013

+1

dirk-thomas added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 3, 2013
REP 124 update strategy for package-relative executables
@dirk-thomas dirk-thomas merged commit c53a3bd into master Oct 3, 2013
@dirk-thomas dirk-thomas deleted the rep124_pkg_rel_exec branch October 3, 2013 18:45
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants