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

ignition: init messages, tools, and transport2 #20847

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

acowley
Copy link
Contributor

@acowley acowley commented Dec 2, 2016

Motivation for this change
Things done
  • Tested using sandboxing
    (nix.useSandbox on NixOS,
    or option build-use-sandbox in nix.conf
    on non-NixOS)
  • Built on platform(s)
    • NixOS
    • macOS
    • Linux
  • Tested compilation of all pkgs that depend on this change using nix-shell -p nox --run "nox-review wip"
  • Tested execution of all binary files (usually in ./result/bin/)
  • Fits CONTRIBUTING.md.

These are interlinked packages used by the Gazebo robot simulator.

nixpkgs already contains earlier versions of transport, but transport2
reflects an apparent refactoring in the ignition libraries to depend
on the tools and messages libraries.

These are interlinked packages used by the Gazebo robot simulator.

nixpkgs already contains earlier versions of transport, but transport2
reflects an apparent refactoring in the ignition libraries to depend
on the tools and messages libraries.
@acowley
Copy link
Contributor Author

acowley commented Dec 2, 2016

I'd also like to add pxc as a maintainer if they are willing.

@acowley
Copy link
Contributor Author

acowley commented Dec 8, 2016

Hi, @therealpxc do these definitions look okay to you? Any interest in being listed as a maintainer?

@therealpxc
Copy link
Contributor

therealpxc commented Dec 17, 2016

Thanks for adding these. :-)

Please do add me as a maintainer. I'm sorry my activity on GitHub has been low lately, hopefully I'll soon be more active.

I'm interested in helping with these packages although my main use case for Gazebo dropped off a few months ago, and I would like to stay notified of problems with them so I can try fixing them when I have time. However, I don't consider myself an authority or expert of any kind on NixOS or Gazebo or even CMake.

So with that in mind, may I ask why the manual .cmake.in hacking is necessary for this package but not its cousins/ancestors? I'm just curious about what has complicated this case.

@acowley
Copy link
Contributor Author

acowley commented Dec 21, 2016

I don't recall exactly what it was, @therealpxc, I think I had ended up with paths like /nix/store/hash-pkg/usr in the store. I can't easily verify what paths are installed on Linux, so I can put those patches behind a stdenv.isDarwin flag if you're confident the produced paths were already okay on Linux.

@acowley
Copy link
Contributor Author

acowley commented Jan 8, 2017

Closing due to lack of interest. I'll keep these definitions in downstream projects.

@acowley acowley closed this Jan 8, 2017
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.

None yet

2 participants