Hello,
I updated my code from toolchain 2.2.0 to 2.3.1 and now I can't compile any
component using the provided macros on Linux. I found that cmake is looking
for a manifest.xml file, which I don't have. That means that the code
written for 2.2.x isn't compatible with 2.3.x ? Do I absolutely need to
write a manifest.xml file for each package? However, the code works fine on
win32 since xpath doesn't exists.
Philippe
Orocos Toolchain 2.3 now require a manifest.xml file ?
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Philippe Hamelin
<philippe [dot] hamelin [..] ...> wrote:
> Hello,
> I updated my code from toolchain 2.2.0 to 2.3.1 and now I can't compile any
> component using the provided macros on Linux. I found that cmake is looking
> for a manifest.xml file, which I don't have. That means that the code
> written for 2.2.x isn't compatible with 2.3.x ? Do I absolutely need to
> write a manifest.xml file for each package? However, the code works fine on
> win32 since xpath doesn't exists.
Hmm. We probably went a bit too fast, but manifest.xml files will once
become the standard. Most of our apps we can no longer manage without
one. It defines what a package is and the relations to other packages.
I'll check out the macros and see why it insists on a manifest.xml
file, it should just 'carry on' if none is found.
Peter
Orocos Toolchain 2.3 now require a manifest.xml file ?
2011/3/31 Peter Soetens <peter [..] ...>
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Philippe Hamelin
> <philippe [dot] hamelin [..] ...> wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I updated my code from toolchain 2.2.0 to 2.3.1 and now I can't compile
> any
> > component using the provided macros on Linux. I found that cmake is
> looking
> > for a manifest.xml file, which I don't have. That means that the code
> > written for 2.2.x isn't compatible with 2.3.x ? Do I absolutely need to
> > write a manifest.xml file for each package? However, the code works fine
> on
> > win32 since xpath doesn't exists.
>
> Hmm. We probably went a bit too fast, but manifest.xml files will once
> become the standard. Most of our apps we can no longer manage without
> one. It defines what a package is and the relations to other packages.
>
>
>
Also, is there a proposed workaround for win32 since there's no pkg-config
on this platform?
Philippe
Orocos Toolchain 2.3 now require a manifest.xml file ?
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Philippe Hamelin
<philippe [dot] hamelin [..] ...> wrote:
> 2011/3/31 Peter Soetens <peter [..] ...>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Philippe Hamelin
>> <philippe [dot] hamelin [..] ...> wrote:
>> > Hello,
>> > I updated my code from toolchain 2.2.0 to 2.3.1 and now I can't compile
>> > any
>> > component using the provided macros on Linux. I found that cmake is
>> > looking
>> > for a manifest.xml file, which I don't have. That means that the code
>> > written for 2.2.x isn't compatible with 2.3.x ? Do I absolutely need to
>> > write a manifest.xml file for each package? However, the code works fine
>> > on
>> > win32 since xpath doesn't exists.
>>
>> Hmm. We probably went a bit too fast, but manifest.xml files will once
>> become the standard. Most of our apps we can no longer manage without
>> one. It defines what a package is and the relations to other packages.
>>
>>
>
> Also, is there a proposed workaround for win32 since there's no pkg-config
> on this platform?
> Philippe
There is. It's written in python and can be found here:
https://github.com/gbiggs/pykg-config
but that requires python 2.x for windows too.
In case that is not available either, we'll have to silently/loodly
ignore it, similar to the manifest.xml reading.
Peter
Orocos Toolchain 2.3 now require a manifest.xml file ?
2011/4/4 Peter Soetens <peter [..] ...>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Philippe Hamelin
> <philippe [dot] hamelin [..] ...> wrote:
> > 2011/3/31 Peter Soetens <peter [..] ...>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Philippe Hamelin
> >> <philippe [dot] hamelin [..] ...> wrote:
> >> > Hello,
> >> > I updated my code from toolchain 2.2.0 to 2.3.1 and now I can't
> compile
> >> > any
> >> > component using the provided macros on Linux. I found that cmake is
> >> > looking
> >> > for a manifest.xml file, which I don't have. That means that the code
> >> > written for 2.2.x isn't compatible with 2.3.x ? Do I absolutely need
> to
> >> > write a manifest.xml file for each package? However, the code works
> fine
> >> > on
> >> > win32 since xpath doesn't exists.
> >>
> >> Hmm. We probably went a bit too fast, but manifest.xml files will once
> >> become the standard. Most of our apps we can no longer manage without
> >> one. It defines what a package is and the relations to other packages.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Also, is there a proposed workaround for win32 since there's no
> pkg-config
> > on this platform?
> > Philippe
>
> There is. It's written in python and can be found here:
> https://github.com/gbiggs/pykg-config
>
> but that requires python 2.x for windows too.
>
> In case that is not available either, we'll have to silently/loodly
> ignore it, similar to the manifest.xml reading.
>
>
After some search on google, I found a pkg-config binary for Windows in :
[1] http://ftp.gnome.org/pub/gnome/binaries/win32/dependencies/
Philippe
Orocos Toolchain 2.3 now require a manifest.xml file ?
On Mar 31, 2011, at 16:11 , Peter Soetens wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Philippe Hamelin
> <philippe [dot] hamelin [..] ...> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I updated my code from toolchain 2.2.0 to 2.3.1 and now I can't compile any
>> component using the provided macros on Linux. I found that cmake is looking
>> for a manifest.xml file, which I don't have. That means that the code
>> written for 2.2.x isn't compatible with 2.3.x ? Do I absolutely need to
>> write a manifest.xml file for each package? However, the code works fine on
>> win32 since xpath doesn't exists.
>
> Hmm. We probably went a bit too fast, but manifest.xml files will once
> become the standard. Most of our apps we can no longer manage without
> one. It defines what a package is and the relations to other packages.
Hmmm ... don't remember seeing any discussion on the ML about this becoming a future _requirement_. I would love to hear some background on why it is needed, what the benefits are, and what we are going to need to do with our systems.
S
Orocos Toolchain 2.3 now require a manifest.xml file ?
On Friday 01 April 2011 14:00:20 S Roderick wrote:
> On Mar 31, 2011, at 16:11 , Peter Soetens wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Philippe Hamelin
> >
> > <philippe [dot] hamelin [..] ...> wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >> I updated my code from toolchain 2.2.0 to 2.3.1 and now I can't
> >> compile any component using the provided macros on Linux. I found
> >> that cmake is looking for a manifest.xml file, which I don't have.
> >> That means that the code written for 2.2.x isn't compatible with
> >> 2.3.x ? Do I absolutely need to write a manifest.xml file for each
> >> package? However, the code works fine on win32 since xpath doesn't
> >> exists.
> >
> > Hmm. We probably went a bit too fast, but manifest.xml files will once
> > become the standard. Most of our apps we can no longer manage without
> > one. It defines what a package is and the relations to other packages.
>
> Hmmm ... don't remember seeing any discussion on the ML about this becoming
> a future _requirement_. I would love to hear some background on why it is
> needed, what the benefits are, and what we are going to need to do with our
> systems. S
The manifest contains some info about the package (description),
author/maintainer, license and the packages it depends on.
It's mostly the latter that is of interest for us. It allows us to specify
package dependencies quite easily without having to add them in the
CMakeLists.txt. Both autoproj and rosbuild support package dependency tracking
using this file.
-- Ruben
Orocos Toolchain 2.3 now require a manifest.xml file ?
On 04/01/2011 02:26 PM, Ruben Smits wrote:
> It's mostly the latter that is of interest for us. It allows us to specify
> package dependencies quite easily without having to add them in the
> CMakeLists.txt. Both autoproj and rosbuild support package dependency tracking
> using this file.
Bottom line: autoproj does not *require* this file. I agree with
Stephen. Requiring it is a bit ... intrusive.
Orocos Toolchain 2.3 now require a manifest.xml file ?
2011/4/1 Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain [dot] joyeux [..] ...>
> On 04/01/2011 02:26 PM, Ruben Smits wrote:
> > It's mostly the latter that is of interest for us. It allows us to
> specify
> > package dependencies quite easily without having to add them in the
> > CMakeLists.txt. Both autoproj and rosbuild support package dependency
> tracking
> > using this file.
> Bottom line: autoproj does not *require* this file. I agree with
> Stephen. Requiring it is a bit ... intrusive.
>
+1. Requiring it would hardly break any existing build system relying on
UseOROCOS-RTT.cmake. I think it should ignore the auto-linking if no
manifest is found (as Peter's patch does).
Philippe
Orocos Toolchain 2.3 now require a manifest.xml file ?
On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 10:11 PM, Peter Soetens
<peter [..] ...> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 7:38 PM, Philippe Hamelin
> <philippe [dot] hamelin [..] ...> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I updated my code from toolchain 2.2.0 to 2.3.1 and now I can't compile any
>> component using the provided macros on Linux. I found that cmake is looking
>> for a manifest.xml file, which I don't have. That means that the code
>> written for 2.2.x isn't compatible with 2.3.x ? Do I absolutely need to
>> write a manifest.xml file for each package? However, the code works fine on
>> win32 since xpath doesn't exists.
>
> Hmm. We probably went a bit too fast, but manifest.xml files will once
> become the standard. Most of our apps we can no longer manage without
> one. It defines what a package is and the relations to other packages.
>
> I'll check out the macros and see why it insists on a manifest.xml
> file, it should just 'carry on' if none is found.
>
Patch in attachment. Pushed to toolchain-2.3 branch.
Peter