[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#998338: transition: urdfdom



On Tue, Nov 9, 2021 at 9:46 PM Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org> wrote:
On 2021-11-08 23:03:51, Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> Control: tags -1 = confirmed
>
> On 2021-11-08 22:41:02 +0100, Jose Luis Rivero wrote:
> > Hi Sebastian:
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 2, 2021 at 5:39 PM Sebastian Ramacher <sramacher@debian.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Why is liburdfom-tools  being renamed? This packages does not contain a
> > > shared library.
> > >
> > >
> > No reason. Good catch. I've uploaded 3.0.0+ds-3 that revert the
> > liburdfdom-tools name change.
> >
> > Run ratt again with this new version:
> > https://build.osrfoundation.org/job/debian-ratt-builder/126/
> >
> > 2021/11/08 17:25:15 PASSED: ros-collada-urdf
> > 2021/11/08 17:25:15 PASSED: ros-kdl-parser
> > 2021/11/08 17:25:15 PASSED: ros-urdf

They all failed with:

Holy moly, the ratt build is using the 3.0.0 version and did not fail. https://build.osrfoundation.org/job/debian-ratt-builder/126/artifact/logs/buildlogs/ros-urdf_1.13.2-7/*view*/
I don't know why, I need to look deeper into the problem. Sorry for that Sebastian.
 
CMake Error at /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/cmake/urdf/urdfConfig.cmake:171
(message):
  Project 'rviz' tried to find library
  '$<$<NOT:$<CONFIG:Debug>>:-lurdfdom_sensor'.  The library is neither ja
  target nor built/installed properly.  Did you compile project 'urdf'? Did
  you find_package() it before the subdirectory containing its code is
  included?

This looks like a bug in urdfcom to me … three <, but only two >.

It is, indeed. Jochen sent the patch upstream https://github.com/ros/urdfdom/pull/164 and I have uploaded 3.0.0+ds-5 shipping it. Let's see if that fixes all the problems.
 

Cheers


>
> Please go ahead
>
> Cheers
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Could you please proceed with the transition?
> > > > Thanks!
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sebastian Ramacher
> > >
>
> --
> Sebastian Ramacher



--
Sebastian Ramacher

Reply to: