Bug#835609: ros-rviz: FTBFS in testing (conversion to non-scalar type requested)

[Santiago Vila]

Package: src:ros-rviz
Version: 1.12.1+dfsg-1
Severity: serious

Dear maintainer:

I tried to build this package in stretch with "dpkg-buildpackage -A"
(which is what the "Arch: all" autobuilder would do to build it)
but it failed:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[...]
 debian/rules build-indep
dh build-indep --parallel --with=python2 --buildsystem=cmake
   dh_testdir -i -O--parallel -O--buildsystem=cmake
   dh_update_autotools_config -i -O--parallel -O--buildsystem=cmake
   dh_auto_configure -i -O--parallel -O--buildsystem=cmake
	cmake .. -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr -DCMAKE_VERBOSE_MAKEFILE=ON -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=None -DCMAKE_INSTALL_SYSCONFDIR=/etc -DCMAKE_INSTALL_LOCALSTATEDIR=/var
-- The C compiler identification is GNU 6.1.1
-- The CXX compiler identification is GNU 6.1.1
-- Check for working C compiler: /usr/bin/cc
-- Check for working C compiler: /usr/bin/cc -- works
-- Detecting C compiler ABI info
-- Detecting C compiler ABI info - done
-- Detecting C compile features

[... snipped ...]


/<<BUILDDIR>>/ros-rviz-1.12.1+dfsg/src/rviz/robot/robot_link.cpp: In constructor 'rviz::RobotLink::RobotLink(rviz::Robot*
, const LinkConstPtr&, const string&, bool, bool)':
/<<BUILDDIR>>/ros-rviz-1.12.1+dfsg/src/rviz/robot/robot_link.cpp:265:101: error: conversion from 'std::vector<std::shared_ptr<urdf::Joint> >::const_iterator {aka __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const std::shared_ptr<urdf::Joint>*, std::vector<std::shared_ptr<urdf::Joint> > >}' to non-scalar type 'std::vector<boost::shared_ptr<urdf::Joint> >::const_iterator {aka __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const boost::shared_ptr<urdf::Joint>*, std::vector<boost::shared_ptr<urdf::Joint> > >}' requested
     std::vector<boost::shared_ptr<urdf::Joint> >::const_iterator child_it = link->child_joints.begin();
                                                                             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^~
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seems that GCC 6 is even more strict than before.

Thanks.