Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

update dockerfile to use beta2 binaries #14

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jul 7, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@mikaelarguedas
Copy link
Contributor

commented Jul 5, 2017

No description provided.

@mikaelarguedas

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jul 6, 2017

ready for review

@dirk-thomas
Copy link
Member

left a comment

lgtm

@mikaelarguedas

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jul 7, 2017

Is there a will to keep a Dockerfile building the code from source as an example ? I know that several users mentioned wanting to have a dockerfile for ROS2 development / testing including @chapulina yesterday.
This doesnt prevent from merging this as is it's more of a follow-up discussion

@dirk-thomas

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jul 7, 2017

Currently we don't maintain any Dockerfiles for ROS 2. Instead we provide from-source instructions only. To minimize the effort to maintain both and keeping them in sync I would favor only supporting one. That can be the from source instructions (so users have to copy-n-paste the lines into a Dockerfile) or we could provide a Dockerfile which contains plenty of comments (which then can serve as the from-source instructions).

@mikaelarguedas

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jul 7, 2017

That can be the from source instructions (so users have to copy-n-paste the lines into a Dockerfile) or we could provide a Dockerfile which contains plenty of comments (which then can serve as the from-source instructions).

👍 I like the idea and don't feel strongly about one rather than the other

@mikaelarguedas mikaelarguedas merged commit 4ca6c14 into master Jul 7, 2017

@mikaelarguedas mikaelarguedas deleted the update_dockerfile branch Jul 7, 2017

@dirk-thomas

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

commented Jul 7, 2017

The second option even has the benefit that we could automate the build which will ensure that our instructions work as intended.

@mikaelarguedas

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

commented Jul 7, 2017

The second option even has the benefit that we could automate the build which will ensure that our instructions work as intended.

Agreed.
I was just wondering if the first one would not be more readable / conventional for users (not everybody is familiar with docker and could be surprised to have to remove all these RUN statements when just being willing to copy paste from the instructions like on the other platforms), that's why I didnt vouch for one or the other

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.