Re: Gazebo is not installable
Hi Jose,
well, usually we need to request so-called "binNMU", which
should be done by release team. Or we can do some changes
in package itself (for example adding small autopkgtest)
and upload it again.
There is really a problem with the player-package, which
prevents migrating gazebo into testing. So, if we want to
have gazebo in testing #726561 should be fixed.
Cheers
Anton
2015-05-28 19:37 GMT+02:00 Jose Luis Rivero <jrivero@osrfoundation.org>:
> Hey Anton:
>
> I believe that to fix the problem that Leo is describing in his mail, we
> just need to generate a new version of Gazebo and it will built against
> libsimbody-3.5 without a major problem.
>
> If it is just a matter of generate a 5.0.1+dfsg-2 (there is no version
> limitation in the control file, just simbody 3.X series) , that is totally
> fine for me. Please go ahead. If you need me to modify anything, please
> point me to it.
>
> Thanks Leo, Jochen for reporting.
>
> On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda
> <leo@alaxarxa.net> wrote:
>>
>> El Dimecres, 27 de maig de 2015, a les 11:35:33, Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda
>> va
>> escriure:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I don't know what is wrong with gazebo but now the situation is that
>> > this
>> > package is not installable in a sid environment.
>> >
>> > The situation was that the package uploaded by Anton was built using
>> > libsimbody3.4. However, this package have been upgraded to simbody3.5,
>> > deleting the old one.
>> >
>> > I have compiled and used gazebo5 with simbody3.5 and works without any
>> > noticeable issue.
>> >
>> > So, please could you do something?
>> >
>> Also, please could you delete robot-player-dev dependency. I think that it
>> doesn't need that package.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Leopold
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Linux User 152692 GPG: 05F4A7A949A2D9AA
>> Catalonia
>> -------------------------------------
>> A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
>> Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
>> A: Top-posting.
>> Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
>
>
Reply to: