packaging ROS bfl

[Jochen Sprickerhof]

* Johannes Schauer <josch at debian.org> [2016-10-19 10:40]:
> I see. This is the upstream packaging with only very minor modifications by
> Jochen (liblti-dev is not packaged yet either, so it got removed from B-D).

Yeah, that was only a quick shot to try some stuff. Feel free to rework
it.

> The question remains, what to do about the different naming bfl (ROS) versus
> orocos-bfl (upstream). Probably ROS packages using it would have to try
> detecting one of them with cmake and fall back onto the other if it wasn't
> found.

As the ROS version is clearly just an outdated version of the Orocos
upstream, I would go with Orocos and send patches to the depending
projects.

Cheers Jochen
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 801 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-science-maintainers/attachments/20161020/d1f0f8fc/attachment.sig>