ros-kinetic-fzi-icl-core not installed with desktop-full installation?

asked 2017-03-21 00:29:22 -0500

sam26 gravatar image

updated 2017-03-21 00:44:08 -0500

I am operating on Ubuntu 16.04 ARM64 . I am simulating the installation of desktop-full version of ROS Kinetic and I notice that a system package libboost-date-time1.58.0 is getting upgraded during the installation. Looking at what ros package/packages is/are dependent on this, I found ros-kinetic-fzi-icl-core and ros-kinetic-ecto are the ROS packages depending on libboost-date-time1.58.0 but they are not getting installed at all in the first place with the installation of ros-kinetic-desktop-full. What are these packages and are these packages supposed to be installed manually? Thank you very much in advance.

edit retag flag offensive close merge delete



There are many ROS packages that are not part of desktop-full; these are two of them. I'm not sure why libboost-date-time is getting upgraded, but these packages probably aren't the responsible.

ahendrix gravatar image ahendrix  ( 2017-03-21 00:52:11 -0500 )edit

I didn't know that there are certain left out packages like that. Thanks for the clarification. you're probably right. libboost-date-time1.58.0 was getting upgraded because of a package libboost-date-time1.58-dev whose newer version was going to be installed and it has a dependency on the former

sam26 gravatar image sam26  ( 2017-03-21 00:56:07 -0500 )edit

@sam26: I've pointed you to REP-142 - ROS Indigo and Newer Metapackages a few times now. What does and does not get installed in desktop-full is fully specified in that REP. Was anything unclear about that?

gvdhoorn gravatar image gvdhoorn  ( 2017-03-21 02:07:47 -0500 )edit

I did go through the link that you have provided and thank you for that. I was not aware that there could be certain ros packages excluded from desktop-full as well and thought that all the ros packages would be fetched at some or the other level of dependency tree.

sam26 gravatar image sam26  ( 2017-03-21 02:51:10 -0500 )edit

Sorry and will ensure that you won't have to send the same link again :)

sam26 gravatar image sam26  ( 2017-03-21 02:51:51 -0500 )edit

No need to apologise, I just wanted to make sure there wasn't something that was unclear.

gvdhoorn gravatar image gvdhoorn  ( 2017-03-21 09:43:33 -0500 )edit