ROS Resources: Documentation | Support | Discussion Forum | Index | Service Status | Q&A
Ask Your Question

realsense2_camera galactic release fails on ros buildfarm

asked 2021-07-15 00:47:34 -0600

doronhi gravatar image

I released realsense2_camera package for galactic using bloom-release. It fails in ros buildfarm:

The error message says that a branch, debian/ros-galactic-realsense2-camera-msgs_3.2.2-1_focal, is missing.

The package is dependent on librealsense2 which was just merged and therefore not synched yet and not yet available. Could that be the reason why the said branch was not created during the 'bloom-release' process?

If that's the case, is it somehow possible to fix the issue without first waiting for librealsense2 to be released? The idea is to release both packages together as librealsense2 in itself is not useful for ROS users.

edit retag flag offensive close merge delete

1 Answer

Sort by ยป oldest newest most voted

answered 2021-09-20 17:23:45 -0600

It appears that this has since been resolved, but I want to explain what likely happened for those that stumble upon this question.

The short story is that when you ran Bloom to release realsense2_camera, it didn't complete all of the actions successfully, and didn't generate all of the branches that the buildfarm needs.

When Bloom generates the metadata for a package, it needs to resolve the .deb/.rpm package names for all of the dependencies. At that time, it's possible that librealsense2 hadn't been merged into the distro yet, and so the generator failed. Bloom was still able to create a release branch for the package such that it could be listed in the rosdistro index, but wasn't able to create debian or rpm branches because of the missing dependency. I suspect that reviewing the console output from Bloom would have confirmed this.

After librealsense2 was merged into rosdistro, simply re-releasing the package using bloom-release -r galactic realsense2_camera and opening the rosdistro PR should have been enough to resolve the issue - no changes to the source repositories of either package should have been necessary.

edit flag offensive delete link more


Thanks. It sounds reasonable. Indeed, I did not look closely at the console output as I only became aware of the issue a few days later. I'll try to be more watchful with the release of future ROS distributions.

doronhi gravatar image doronhi  ( 2021-09-21 23:54:03 -0600 )edit

Your Answer

Please start posting anonymously - your entry will be published after you log in or create a new account.

Add Answer

Question Tools



Asked: 2021-07-15 00:47:34 -0600

Seen: 62 times

Last updated: Sep 20 '21