Use identical package.xml for ROS1 and ROS2 pkgs

edit

But there's no way to conditionally change a package's build_type as far as I understand, and the only build_type that's common to both ROS and ROS 2 is cmake. I don't actually know the nuances of how catkin vs cmake packages are built outside of bloom release templates but I imagine there is one.

That's a good point.

So is there a way to use this to build pure cmake packages for both ros 1 and 2 with a single package.xml? AFAICT the respective build_types are cmake and ament_cmake . See the discussion at https://github.com/strasdat/Sophus/pu... and the linked package.xml files.

For pure CMake it is just cmake In both cases.

Ah I see. Is there documentation for plain cmake packages with ament somewhere? For example, should you add something like an exec depend on catkin, which is suggested for pure cmake packages in catkin (to make sure the setup files are there when the package is installed)?

Or is there an example?

It's recommended to depend on catkin from pure cmake packages, but we removed that need in ament, since the build tool, and not the package itself, now creates the root setup.sh files. We create the setup.sh files if needed in a "workspace package".

@nuclearsandwich addressed this in our ament debian packages with the injected dependency on the ros_workspace ( http://repo.ros2.org/status_page/ros_... ) package.

The googletest packages are both plain cmake, as an example: https://github.com/ament/googletest/b...

Just saw your third comment. Posted the answer by accident. The example is helpful, thanks!

Btw, how do we deal with the different build_type for ros 1 and ros 2 for regular catkin / ament packages? As @nuclearsandwich pointed out above, the conditions are only for dependencies only, or are they not?

@William@Dirk Thomas, is there a solution in sight for the issue concerning build_type for a mixed ros1 / ros2 package?

@William@Dirk Thomas, friendly ping about the issue concerning different build_type for mixed catkin / ament packages (not pure-cmake). Is there any solution is sight or already implemented? Maybe I'm missing something...

If you use the same built type in both (basically <build_type>cmake</build_type> is the only one that would be supported) then you can do it. I believe we'll need some additional changes to the package.xml format to support conditional build type, but no one has followed up yet.

Thanks for confirming the current state. Just for the record, an alternative to changing package format again would maybe be if the build system(s) would support or translate more identical build_types (rather than just cmake as is now).

For reference: https://github.com/ros-infrastructure...

I see where the changes to the REP were merged, but it doesn't look like the condition on build_type is being checked in the current version of ament. Is this on the roadmap or is there another suggestion for making ROS1 and ROS2 packages co-exist?