Will drcsim debs be released for gazebo5?

[osrf-migration]

Original report (archived issue) by Steve Peters (Bitbucket: Steven Peters, GitHub: scpeters).

---

The released drcsim debs use gazebo4, which has already reached its end-of-life. Since there are still atlas robots in the world, we should consider releasing a new version of drcsim that uses gazebo5.

cc: @_jrivero_ @dljsjr

[osrf-migration]

Original comment by DouglasS (Bitbucket: DouglasS).

---

+1 for this.

IHMC, MIT, and WPI all still have Atlas robots. In addition, the Atlas sims themselves make for a really good baseline for people interested in getting going with humanoids. I think it makes sense to keep the Atlas simulations around and tracking the latest version of Gazebo in some way or another. I'd be okay if going forward the scope was reduced to maybe just the robot models and an empty world launch instead of having to maintain the various plugins and environments, but just having a way to simulate Atlas in the latest Gazebo in some officially supported capacity would be really nice.

[osrf-migration]

Original comment by Jose Luis Rivero (Bitbucket: Jose Luis Rivero, GitHub: j-rivero).

---

I've been testing the option to release from default branch using gazebo5 and seems possible.

A couple of questions, @scpeters, @hsu:

• Do we want to reuse the drcsim package name or build a new one (like drcsim5) to keep the old one working?
• I've seen a 5.1.1 prerelease and default branch seems to be ABI compatible with the latest 5.0.0 release. 5.2.0 for the new version?

Thanks.

[osrf-migration]

Original comment by Steve Peters (Bitbucket: Steven Peters, GitHub: scpeters).

---

drcsim can remain using gazebo4, but what if we made drcsim-gazebo5 and drcsim-gazebo7 packages?

[osrf-migration]

Original comment by Jose Luis Rivero (Bitbucket: Jose Luis Rivero, GitHub: j-rivero).

---

We have drcsim-gazebo5 released, probably unsupported officially but it should work or I'm happy to work to make it work if there are problems with releasing. I can do the same for gazebo7 if there is enough interest.

[osrf-migration]

Original comment by Steve Peters (Bitbucket: Steven Peters, GitHub: scpeters).

---

You're right, that drcsim5 deb is using gazebo5 5.1.0 (build log) and ros-indigo-gazebo5-ros-pkgs 2.4.9.

[osrf-migration]

Original comment by Steve Peters (Bitbucket: Steven Peters, GitHub: scpeters).

---

I think we should try building drcsim-gazebo7 as well, making sure to use indigo and gazebo-ros-pkgs 2.4.10.

[osrf-migration]

Original comment by Jose Luis Rivero (Bitbucket: Jose Luis Rivero, GitHub: j-rivero).

---

Ok, it should not be very difficult. The compilation needs some fixes, working on porting them right now.

[osrf-migration]

Original comment by Nate Koenig (Bitbucket: Nathan Koenig).

---

Compilation for gazbeo7 is in pull request #542

[osrf-migration]

Original comment by Jose Luis Rivero (Bitbucket: Jose Luis Rivero, GitHub: j-rivero).

---

drcsim7 package for Trusty/Indigo is ready to be tested in our repo. The early error detecting job did not found critical problems while installing the package although there is a good bunch of errors reported in the log when running roslaunch.

[osrf-migration]

Original comment by Steve Peters (Bitbucket: Steven Peters, GitHub: scpeters).

---

So we are going to match the drcsim major version to gazebo's major version?

[osrf-migration]

Original comment by Nate Koenig (Bitbucket: Nathan Koenig).

---

...or should we call the new drcsim package: drcsimX-gazebo7-indigo? Where X is the major version of drcsim.

[osrf-migration]

Original comment by Jose Luis Rivero (Bitbucket: Jose Luis Rivero, GitHub: j-rivero).

---

Currently the packages are called drcsim5 (using gazebo5) or drcsim7 (using gazebo7). Although they are not semantically incorrect, Nate is right about the name, if we are going to release for different ROS versions and gazebo versions a good name scheme would be drcsimX-gazeboY-${ros_distro}. If we are going to maintain and develop drcsim in the next months I can prepare the transition from current names to proper ones.

For the version I decided to bump the major this time to 7 but the selection on the version scheme needs to depend on how are we going to maintain the code (releases from default branch or different branches for every gazebo version). We probably want to keep the same version for all the different flavours since they correspond to just one source code.

[osrf-migration]

Original comment by Steve Peters (Bitbucket: Steven Peters, GitHub: scpeters).

---

Is this a good time to think about trying to use the ROS build farm for these packages? I remember @gerkey mentioned that somewhat recently.

[osrf-migration]

Original comment by Jose Luis Rivero (Bitbucket: Jose Luis Rivero, GitHub: j-rivero).

---

DRCSim should be easy to release using bloom since it is a standard ROS package.

Given that we are adding complexity and diverge from ROS official gazebo version I don't think that we can use the ROS building farm.

[osrf-migration]

Original comment by Steve Peters (Bitbucket: Steven Peters, GitHub: scpeters).

---

If there was a way to add alternative rosdep keys at build time, we could do something like the following:

gazebo:
    ubuntu:
        apt:
            packages: [libgazebo7-dev]
gazebo_ros:
    ubuntu:
        apt:
            packages: [ros-indigo-gazebo7-ros]
gazebo_ros_control:
    ubuntu:
        apt:
            packages: [ros-indigo-gazebo7-ros-control]

I don't know how that would work with the rest of the build-farm though