Update rpicam_apps_packages.adoc - Refer to libcamera-dev

[peter-vanpoucke]

Refer to libcamera-dev instead.

[peter-vanpoucke]

rpicam_apps_building.adoc does libcamera-dev mention in Building rpicam-apps without rebuilding libcamera. But

[aallan]

Ping @davidplowman

[davidplowman]

@naushir Two commits here.

The first one wants to change the libcamera-dev package to rpicam-dev. This doesn't feel right to me, it's the "dev" version of the "libcamera" package that we want. Would you agree? Is there even an rpicam-dev package?

The second commit wants to add some png related packages. I assume these are ok.

[naushir]

The first one wants to change the libcamera-dev package to rpicam-dev. This doesn't feel right to me, it's the "dev" version of the "libcamera" package that we want. Would you agree? Is there even an rpicam-dev package?

Yes, I agree. I think libcamera-dev is the right term here.

[aallan]

Okay to merge then @davidplowman @naushir ?

[davidplowman]

I think the 2nd commit with the dng change is OK, but I'm not convinced about the first without someone verifying the behaviour.

[peter-vanpoucke]

fyi libpng seems to be required here.

[peter-vanpoucke]

@naushir Two commits here.

The first one wants to change the libcamera-dev package to rpicam-dev. This doesn't feel right to me, it's the "dev" version of the "libcamera" package that we want. Would you agree? Is there even an rpicam-dev package?

The second commit wants to add some png related packages. I assume these are ok.

hi @davidplowman. Just to be sure we're on the same page, I'm trying to change the package to libcamera-dev. rpicam-dev was originally there.

[davidplowman]

fyi libpng seems to be required here.

Thanks for the clarification, and indeed thanks for posting the documentation correction!

@aallan can we merge the png (I meant "png" earlier where I said "dng") commit and leave the other one? I'd want to double-check on that other commit before deciding on it.

[davidplowman]

@naushir Two commits here.
The first one wants to change the libcamera-dev package to rpicam-dev. This doesn't feel right to me, it's the "dev" version of the "libcamera" package that we want. Would you agree? Is there even an rpicam-dev package?
The second commit wants to add some png related packages. I assume these are ok.

hi @davidplowman. Just to be sure we're on the same page, I'm trying to change the package to libcamera-dev. rpicam-dev was originally there.

Ah, sorry messages crossed in the post. Indeed, rpicam-dev would be wrong. libcamera-dev would be correct. In which case, yes - we can merge both commits. Sorry for not noticing, haven't really got back in the driving seat after New Year. Thanks everyone!