iron: upstream package updates

[jimmy-mcelwain]

Updates packages to pull from newer versions for iron

[gavanderhoorn]

Thanks for the PR.

Could you please rebase on iron_update_20240327? Your PR contains a couple of changes that would already be part of #3 and the diff is a bit confusing like this.

[gavanderhoorn]

I'm especially confused about 1aa6c57.

[jimmy-mcelwain]

Alright, I rebased onto iron_update_20240327. Hopefully that makes it cleaner.

[gavanderhoorn]

Thanks @jimmy-mcelwain.

I've squashed your commits (and a single fixup from my side).

[gavanderhoorn]

Could you please let me know which upstream Iron release you took these package versions from?

Then we can update the commit comment (on 0ec37d6) and merge this.

[jimmy-mcelwain]

I misunderstood, I didn't take the versions from any single release of iron. In many cases I just pulled the latest release for iron from each package individually. I can update it to match a single released version (I will look at 20240423), but to do so I may have to also rebase some of our forked branches onto newer upstream versions, e.g. our fork of ament_cmake is based on 2.0.4 whereas iron release 20240423 targets uses 2.0.5.

Also, the micro-ros releases don't appear to target specific releases/commits when pulling packages, it just pulls the newest version from each iron branch if I am reading the .repos file correctly. So I may just target the latest released version for each repo that they target if that seems reasonable.

Sorry for the confusion

[gavanderhoorn]

First: lets not make things more complex than they already are. I suggest we keep the list of pkgs you already identified, including the versions in this PR.

Having written that: we loosely follow calendar versioning here, and the fact upstream tags their .repos files with something like that should make things easier to keep in-sync. Rationale: (expected) benefits wrt compatibility between (micro)ROS 2 and MotoROS2.

We can't completely limit ourselves to upstream releases as we sometimes need additional (unreleased) fixes.

For future updates we'll want to look at / stick to upstream release tags. For now we'll keep your PR as-is.

[gavanderhoorn]

I suggest we update the commit comment to instead mention the date at which you checked upstream.

[gavanderhoorn]

oh, and to clarify:

Also, the micro-ros releases don't appear to target specific releases/commits when pulling packages, it just pulls the newest version from each iron branch if I am reading the .repos file correctly. So I may just target the latest released version for each repo that they target if that seems reasonable.

When I write upstream, I don't necessarily mean micro-ROS. Technically we use micro-ROS, but quite a few packages come from 'regular' ROS 2.

I should've clarified.

[jimmy-mcelwain]

Okay. I last did a complete check of the upstream branches yesterday, so I marked it as such through the commit message and pushed it back up.

[gavanderhoorn]

Test build: here.

Seems to build. Thanks @jimmy-mcelwain 👍