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

asked 2017-03-21 00:29:22 -0600

sam26 gravatar image

updated 2017-03-21 00:44:08 -0600

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

Comments

1

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 imageahendrix ( 2017-03-21 00:52:11 -0600 )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 imagesam26 ( 2017-03-21 00:56:07 -0600 )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 imagegvdhoorn ( 2017-03-21 02:07:47 -0600 )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 imagesam26 ( 2017-03-21 02:51:10 -0600 )edit

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

sam26 gravatar imagesam26 ( 2017-03-21 02:51:51 -0600 )edit

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

gvdhoorn gravatar imagegvdhoorn ( 2017-03-21 09:43:33 -0600 )edit