Is there already a good to way to avoid bizarre dependency like above? Or if there isn't, what we can do to amend this?
I thought we may want to create a sensor description package, maybe somewhere close to its driver. For example for Kinect it may be like in [freenect_stack](https://github.com/ros-drivers/freenect_stack/) (need more discussion for the specific location of course).
Also available on Gazebo are some sensors' `SDF`s, which cannot reversibly be used in ROS AFAIK. So IMO this can't be an option.
Here is the conclusion that I like from Jack O'Quin
> For most devices, I think it makes sense to distribute the foo_description as a separate package in the same repository as the foo_driver.
> * They get released together, so they remain in sync with support for new models, etc.
> * Their dependencies remain separate.
> * They can be installed on different machines, useful if the driver can run on a small headless controller.
> Of course, some generic drivers, like camera1394 or usb_cam, have no idea what the actual device looks like. There are thousands of IIDC or USB camera models. I suppose they could provide a generic box with a lens, but what's the point? That could legitimately go somewhere else.
[Discourse.ros.org] [robot description formats] Common location for sensor URDF files?
In reply to this post by Procópio Stein via ros-users
For commonly-used sensors like the Kinect or SICK laser scanners, I wholeheartedly agree with having a description package I can install and use without needing to bring in an entire robot description.