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

Re: Creating a debian robotics group inside debian science

Hash: SHA1

Hi everyone!

As researcher in robotics, I really like the idea of a robotics division
within debian/science.

IMHO, an essential package missing in [3] is the Player project (old
player/stage), already in debian (package "robot-player"). And I'd also
add (but this opinion is biased since I'm the author...) the Mobile
Robot Programming Toolkit (MRPT) package, currently in the New queue of

Another good library (I think still not debianized) which would fit is
VXL (algebra, computer vision,...).

Jose Luis

Leopold Palomo Avellaneda wrote:
> [Please follow up to debian-science]
> Dear people,
> first of all I would like to apologise because I have "BCC" this mail to 
> people that I think that use debian (or ubuntu) and has relation with the 
> robotics area and they are not subscribe to this list. If I'm wrong, sorry 
> for the noise and move this mail to /dev/null. ;-)
> OTOH, if it's your case, and you know people that are interested, please, FF 
> this message.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> What's debian-science?
> From [1] , the goals are:
> - Provide to researchers and scientists better experience when using Debian. 
> - Classify, package and distribute free software useful to science and 
> research. 
> - Support any quality efforts around free scientific software. 
> - Maintaining the Debian Science CDD [2]
> You can use Debian Science perfectly as you are using Debian because it is a 
> completely internal project and is nothing else than Debian itself. We just 
> felt a need to found a team that works as a strike force for scientific 
> software inside Debian. 
> #metapackages provide an easy way of installing a range of software 
> appropriate to your particular field.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> In general, all of us use a collection of packages that are common in the 
> scientific area. Under the umbrella of debian science, I would like to ask if 
> someone are interested in create some kind of group to create and maintain 
> software packages in the robotics area. 
> I have added to this mail people that I know that don't know how to create 
> packages, but they are users (and developers) and their collaboration with 
> ideas about interesting software or bugs or whatever is important.
> Also, I have added people that has their own custom debian distribution based 
> on debian (or ubuntu) and their collaboration joining efforts to maintain 
> some packages could be decisive. I should mention that the robotics area is 
> very wide but there's a part that has a special relation with the hardware 
> (robots, devices, ...) that has some specific constraints: realtime kernels 
> and drivers.
> OTOH, you cannot underestimate all the people that their work in the robotics 
> area is based on simulations or planning, where many times use software of 
> the games and they don't depend on any specific hardware.  
> To many kind of packages could go there, and a lot of tasks could be defined. 
> This mail is just a first approach to try to work together, to share opinions 
> (problems) to see if it could be done or not. I did a first fast and dirty 
> propose of packages (done or to package) [3]. The responsible tag is that i 
> have propose it.
> If you are interested, please reply to the debian science list. If the group 
> is consolided, we can ask to create a specific list, but. 
> Opinions, ideas?
> [1] http://wiki.debian.org/DebianScience
> [2] http://people.debian.org/~tille/cdd/
> [3] http://cdd.alioth.debian.org/science/tasks/robotics.html

- --


Jose-Luis Blanco-Claraco      Phone: +34 952 132848
Dpto. Ingenieria de Sistemas y Automatica
E.T.S.I. Telecomunicacion       Fax: +34 952 133361
Universidad de Malaga
Campus Universitario de Teatinos
29071 Malaga, Spain


Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


Reply to: