Closed dirk-thomas closed 6 years ago
Lgtm as this fixes the current issue we have on development jobs.
It does seem a bit backward to have catkin_pkg
have knowledge of all the build tools marker files hard-coded in its' code.
Was it considered to allow catkin_pkg consumers to specify marker file names? This would allow for more reuse of catkin_pkg and avoid hard coding external information in catkin_pkg itself.
Was it considered to allow catkin_pkg consumers to specify marker file names?
The same problem will apply to the caller, e.g. rosdep
. So I don't think that would be an improvement.
Yeah I didn't mean it would be a silver bullet. Just that it seems that we're going in a direction of adding external knowledge to low level tools code that would ideally be caller-agnostic and not need to have any hard-coded knowledge of the arbitrary marker file the higher level tools define and use.
:ship: in 0.4.5
The current use case for this is
rosdep
which uses thecatkin_pkg
API to find packages. With the change any package ignored by either of the marker files will be skipped - no matter if it iscatkin
,ament
orcolcon
specific.