Closed esteve closed 12 months ago
Renaming the package is fine by me. If we're going to have multiple FFI packages then it makes sense.
I don't see a reason to move it to a separate repository, though. It's easy enough to tell colcon not to build the package, and rmw_zenoh_cpp
depends on it. If we were to put several vendor packages for different zenoh FFIs in a single repository, that would make more sense and I'd be happy to do that.
The reason for moving zenoh_vendor
to a separate repo is to keep the micro-ROS infrastructure as simple as possible, currently it's just a bunch of shell scripts and I'd rather to have tweak them when zenoh-pico
is integrated as well.
I'm going to close this old issue out, so we can focus on newer issues with new development.
I'm working on adding support for
zenoh-pico
(https://github.com/eclipse-zenoh/zenoh-pico) to MicroROS and currentlyzenoh_vendor
being in the same repo asrmw_zenoh
causescolcon
to build it. Could you spin offzenoh_vendor
to a separate repository? And if it's not too much asking, naming itzenoh-c_vendor
? It'd make it clear that it's about the C bindings forzenoh
and not the other client implementations (e.g.zenoh-pico
).I'm working on a
zenoh-pico_vendor
package.