Add gz ports: [gz-cmake3] [gz-utils2] [gz-tools2] [gz-math7]

[talregev]

Describe the pull request
Add gz ports

• What does your PR fix?

  Fixes #...

• Which triplets are supported/not supported? Have you updated the CI baseline?

  <all / linux, windows, ...>, <Yes/No>

• Does your PR follow the maintainer guide?

  Your answer

• If you have added/updated a port: Have you run ./vcpkg x-add-version --all and committed the result?

Yes
If you are still working on the PR, open it as a Draft: https://github.blog/2019-02-14-introducing-draft-pull-requests/

[Cheney-W]

I found that following ports in vcpkg have the same homepage as the ports you want to add but different versions:
https://github.com/microsoft/vcpkg/blob/master/ports/ignition-cmake2/vcpkg.json
https://github.com/microsoft/vcpkg/blob/master/ports/ignition-utils1/vcpkg.json
https://github.com/microsoft/vcpkg/blob/master/ports/ignition-tools/vcpkg.json
https://github.com/microsoft/vcpkg/blob/master/ports/ignition-math6/vcpkg.json

Must the port you want to add become an independent port?

[talregev]

It also from the same repo. Gazebo change their packages name. So I think it's best to change the port name. Because in the error msg, it will say the new name for the package, and for user that not aware the old name will have hard time to find it on vcpkg.

…

On Tue, Jan 3, 2023, 12:38 Cheney Wang ***@***.***> wrote: I found that following ports in vcpkg have the same homepage as the ports you want to add but different versions: https://github.com/microsoft/vcpkg/blob/master/ports/ignition-cmake2/vcpkg.json https://github.com/microsoft/vcpkg/blob/master/ports/ignition-utils1/vcpkg.json https://github.com/microsoft/vcpkg/blob/master/ports/ignition-tools/vcpkg.json https://github.com/microsoft/vcpkg/blob/master/ports/ignition-math6/vcpkg.json Must the port you want to add become an independent port? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#28656 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABVXTU7BLMJDVCUTXLFRNF3WQP6TFANCNFSM6AAAAAATNP4BBQ> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[talregev]

Also for each version of gazebo ignition lib part, we created a new port.
I think the reason that it is like that it for support old stuff here.
You can see for these ports already it is separated by the version .

[vicroms]

Are ignition ports side-by-side installable with these gz ports? If not, then we need to remove the old ones or we could introduce a lot of conflicts.

I think it would be better to move the ignition ports to their own registry if you still want to provide support for them.

[talregev]

Are ignition ports side-by-side installable with these gz ports? If not, then we need to remove the old ones or we could introduce a lot of conflicts.

I think it would be better to move the ignition ports to their own registry if you still want to provide support for them.

The ignition ports can installable side by side with gz-ports.
This is not my will to preserve the ignition port aka old ports. I am not sure other ports will effect by them.
Currently I know the old ports needed for old gazebo compilation. I am trying to compile the new gazebo, step by step, port after port.

I didn't understand your suggestions for "own registry".

[vicroms]

I meant creating a custom registry that contains the ignition ports, that way we can delete them from the vcpkg main catalogue, but you'll still be able to maintain the old ports if you want on their own registry.

See our registries documentation to learn how to create a custom registry and promote it in the public registry collection.

[talregev]

contains the ignition ports, that way we can delete them from the vcpkg main catalogue, but you'll still be able to maintain the old ports if you want on their own registry.

Thank you for your explanation. I don't have time to do this. Can you help me?

[talregev]

There already old ignition ports with their version number.
What do you want to do with them?

[talregev]

@vicroms I don't wish to register the previous ports. I don't have use of them.
What are you suggesting to do with ignition ports? Are you wish to delete them?
Some of them depends in other ports. for example gazebo port.

[talregev]

@vicroms @BillyONeal
What you decided to do with the ports with older version that have common name for the same lib?

[talregev]

I added sdformat13 to this PR.

[talregev]

I remove sdformat13 because I didn't succeeded to compile it on linux and mac.
I will try in other when this port will be merge.

[reitowo]

Blocking #30135

[talregev]

Blocking #30135

Can you elaborate?

[BillyONeal]

This all seems reasonable to me and I'm not sure why it's marked requires team review. I'll have an answer for ya worst case on Thursday after our maintainer meeting.

[complexlogic]

@BillyONeal Any update? This PR is blocking the FFmpeg 6 update, and I would like to use that in my projects.

[BillyONeal]

@BillyONeal Any update? This PR is blocking the FFmpeg 6 update, and I would like to use that in my projects.

I'm still in a holding pattern because I haven't been able to hear from Victor, he's got IRL stuff going on. I don't want to just merge without talking to him because he tagged with the 'requires review' tag.

[BillyONeal]

OK we finally talked about this. (@vicroms, @JavierMatosD, @dan-shaw, and I)

The vcpkg-team-review concern is: upstream no longer cares about maintaining ignition-common3, and continuing to index that in the curated registry potentially blocks other unrelated updates like ffmpeg6 #30135

Note that only merging this PR will not unblock the ffmpeg6 update, because the other ignition ports remain listed.

Potential outcomes:

• No, the vcpkg port names use ignition- and we should pick only one despite side-by-side support upstream.
• Delist the older ignition ports.
• Baseline older ignition ports.
• Maintain patches forever.

Result:

• Merge Add gz ports: [gz-cmake3] [gz-utils2] [gz-tools2] [gz-math7] #28656
• Move discussion to the above potential outcomes to [ffmpeg] Update to 6.0 #30135
• Contact @traversaro for opinions on the above potential outcomes because they are the original contributor of the ignition ports.

Speaking personally I think we should delist the ignition- names in the ffmpeg6 update PR.

[traversaro]

Contact @traversaro for opinions on the above potential outcomes because they are the original contributor of the ignition ports.

Replied in #30135 (comment) .

[BillyONeal]

Thanks!