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

[foxy] Fix support for assimp 5.1.0 (#817) #826

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 22, 2022
Merged

Conversation

Ace314159
Copy link
Contributor

@clalancette I tried backporting #817 to foxy. I don't think this will cause any issues since I haven't removed any exports.

@jacobperron
Copy link
Member

jacobperron commented Feb 1, 2022

If we backport this to Foxy, I think we should also backport it to the newer Galactic.

@jacobperron
Copy link
Member

Is there a reason you did not include the changes to rviz_common from #817?

@Ace314159
Copy link
Contributor Author

I didn't include the change to rviz_common since if any downstream package expects rviz_assimp_vendor to be exported by it, changing that might break their build. Even though rviz_common shouldn't export rviz_assimp_vendor, they may still rely on this behavior. I think this was what @clalancette was also hinting at in #817 (comment)

I'm not sure if such a case exists or if we should care about that, so I chose to be safe and not include those changes. I can add them if you want.

@jacobperron
Copy link
Member

Makes sense to me, thanks for clarifying.

I'm okay with backporting this to Foxy and Galactic if @clalancette is okay with it.

@clalancette
Copy link
Contributor

This is a reasonable backport to me, assuming that CI is green.

Copy link
Member

@jacobperron jacobperron left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

  • Linux Build Status
  • Linux-aarch64 Build Status
  • Windows Build Status

@jacobperron jacobperron merged commit 1211b17 into ros2:foxy Feb 22, 2022
nnmm pushed a commit to ApexAI/rviz that referenced this pull request Jan 27, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants