# File naming convention "rosinstall" misleading?

**URL:** <https://discourse.openrobotics.org/t/file-naming-convention-rosinstall-misleading/7334>\
**Category:** ROS General\
**Tags:** rep\
**Created:** [January 4, 2019, 6:55pm UTC](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/t/file-naming-convention-rosinstall-misleading/7334 "2019-01-04T18:55:41Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 6\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![130s](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex022/user_avatar/discourse.openrobotics.org/130s/32/21_2.png) [@130s](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/u/130s)\
**Post date:** [January 4, 2019, 6:55pm UTC](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/t/file-naming-convention-rosinstall-misleading/7334/1 "2019-01-04T18:55:41Z")

</div>

(I can’t find a better channel but please feel free to move this to a more appropriate one.)

I’m wondering if using _rosinstall_ still makes sense as the naming convention of the files that are typically passed to `wstool`. Reason being:

- Those files together with `wstool` don’t install, instead they are used for downloading repositories IMO.
- By `wstool` being ROS-independent tool, those files together with wstool can be used for downloading non-ROS repos.
- After all, the are the files that are passed to `wstool`. I assume _rosinstall_ came from the tool that was previously used.
  - So using something like “wstool” makes more sense, e.g. `.wstool`?

(Note: my experience is highly `wstool`-intensive. I’m not aware of any other active usecase of _rosinstall_ files.)

I suggest updating documentation incl. tutorials, but the core document of his naming is [REP 126](http://www.ros.org/reps/rep-0126.html). I can open an MR to update the rep that if that makes sense.  
This is just about a convention so I don’t think existing usecases get affected even if we change the REP etc.

I’ve seen some experienced engineers who recently started working in ROS-related projects getting confused due to this.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gavanderhoorn](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex022/user_avatar/discourse.openrobotics.org/gavanderhoorn/32/969_2.png) [@gavanderhoorn](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/u/gavanderhoorn)\
**Post date:** [January 4, 2019, 9:18pm UTC](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/t/file-naming-convention-rosinstall-misleading/7334/2 "2019-01-04T21:18:17Z")

</div>

`wstool` has assumptions about workspaces (hence the name). It also requires one to operate on (or initialise one). From the usage doc string:

> wstool is a command to manipulate ROS workspaces. wstool replaces its predecessor rosws.

Successor to `wstool` is [vcstool](https://github.com/dirk-thomas/vcstool), which completely decouples “downloading repositories” from workspace management. Part of the rationale would seem to be exactly the points you raise.

`vcstool` uses `.repos` files (to avoid the confusion with ROS) and only supports `.rosinstall` files for convenience / historical reasons.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tkruse](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex022/user_avatar/discourse.openrobotics.org/tkruse/32/297_2.png) [@tkruse](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/u/tkruse)\
**Post date:** [January 6, 2019, 8:15am UTC](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/t/file-naming-convention-rosinstall-misleading/7334/3 "2019-01-06T08:15:32Z")

</div>

You were already part of that discussion 5 years ago:  
[https://github.com/vcstools/wstool/issues/19](https://github.com/vcstools/wstool/issues/19)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![130s](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex022/user_avatar/discourse.openrobotics.org/130s/32/21_2.png) [@130s](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/u/130s)\
**Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 1:41am UTC](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/t/file-naming-convention-rosinstall-misleading/7334/4 "2019-01-18T01:41:02Z")

</div>

@tkruse Thank you for the headsup. Indeed I was it looks like. I’ll continue there if I want to.

> [@gavanderhoorn](#):
>
> Successor to `wstool` is [vcstool](https://github.com/dirk-thomas/vcstool), which completely decouples “downloading repositories” from workspace management. Part of the rationale would seem to be exactly the points you raise.

I was not aware of `vcstool`. Thank you!

Is there a plan for vcstool to be an official “successor” to wstool? I can’t find any announcement for vcstool yet with regard to wstool. Tutorials still use wstool AFAICT (e.g. [catkin/Tutorials/workspace\_overlaying - ROS Wiki](http://wiki.ros.org/catkin/Tutorials/workspace_overlaying)).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dirk-thomas](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex022/user_avatar/discourse.openrobotics.org/dirk-thomas/32/4328_2.png) [@dirk-thomas](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/u/dirk-thomas)\
**Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 6:21pm UTC](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/t/file-naming-convention-rosinstall-misleading/7334/5 "2019-01-18T18:21:42Z")

</div>

> [@130s](#):
>
> Is there a plan for vcstool to be an official “successor” to wstool?

No, there is no plan to do so. The existing solution using `wstool` works perfectly fine and changing all documentation referencing it is a significant effort.

Both tools can be used for the task and it is mostly a personal preference which one you choose.

The ROS 2 instructions all use `vcstool` just because they have been written after `vcstool` was created (which is already six years ago).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tkruse](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex022/user_avatar/discourse.openrobotics.org/tkruse/32/297_2.png) [@tkruse](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/u/tkruse)\
**Post date:** [January 19, 2019, 1:03am UTC](https://discourse.openrobotics.org/t/file-naming-convention-rosinstall-misleading/7334/6 "2019-01-19T01:03:43Z")

</div>

This has been discussed in several places in the past, such as here: [Redirecting to Google Groups](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ros-sig-ng-ros/wwKMRBov-7c)  
or here: [vcstools/wstool#19](https://github.com/vcstools/wstool/issues/19) (at the bottom)