Revert "gtsam: 4.3.0-3 in 'kilted/distribution.yaml' [bloom]"

[cottsay]

This reverts #48703.

The 4.3.0-3 release, which is an update from 4.3.0-2, contains a multitude of changes which are not possible with only a debinc bump. For debian builds, such substantial changes to the underlying sources require a version bump of some kind.

Failing buildfarm job: https://build.ros2.org/view/Kbin_uN64/job/Ksrc_uN__gtsam__ubuntu_noble__source/4/

@jlblancoc FYI

[github-actions]

Thanks for sending a pull request to ROS distro!

This is an automated tool that helps check your pull request for correctness.
This tool checks a number of attributes associated with your ROS package and generates a report that helps our reviewers merge your pull request in a timely fashion. Here are a few things to consider when sending adding or updating a package to ROS Distro.
ROS Distro includes a very helpful CONTRIBUTING.md file that we recommend reading if it is your first time submitting a package.
Please also read the ROS Distro review guidelines which summarizes this release process.

ROS Distro Considerations

• ROS Distributions are created using REP-134 Standards Track as a guide.
• Your package name should comply to REP-144 ROS Package Naming
• Your package must build for all platforms and architectures on the ROS buildfarm. See REP-2000 ROS Releases and Supported Platforms for all supported platforms for your ROS Distro.
• Your package must contain an OSI approved license. Your package.xml file must also include that license in a machine readable format. See REP-149 Package Manifest Format Three Specification for additional details.
• A publicly available, open source, repository for your ROS package.
• While not required, we recommend that you create an account for ROS Discourse and subscribe to the appropriate release topic.
• If you would like, you may join our Discord Server and ask questions in the #infra-help channel.

Package Considerations

Having your package included in a ROS Distro is a badge of quality, and we recommend that package developers strive to create packages of the highest quality. We recommend package developers review the following resources before submitting their package.

• REP-2004 Package Quality Declaration-- The ROS 2 TSC has created a quality rating system for ROS packages. These ratings should serve as a guide for package developers. We recommend package developers achieve a quality level of three or higher.
• Documentation -- it is recommended that ROS packages include an extensive README.md file, and API level documentation using the Sphinx documentation system.
• Maintainer Responsibilities -- the ROS 2 documentation includes a guide to ROS package maintainer responsibilities that summarizes your responsibilities as an open source maintainer. While we do not enforce these requirements on package maintainers they should be considered best practices.
• We recommend that your package should strive to conform to the ROS 2 Developer Guide and the ROS 2 Style Guide.

Need Help?

Please post your questions to Robotics Stack Exchange or refer to the #infra-help channel on our Discord server.

---

For changes related to yamllint:

• ✅ All new lines of YAML pass linter checks

[jlblancoc]

Thanks for the pointers, @cottsay . I mentioned this on discourse since wasn't sure how to treat incremental "alpha" releases upstream. Sadly, the old version you are rolling back, IIRC, had some build errors hence the need to upgrade it.

I guess the only solution is to remove this package (or let it be removed on the next sync since it's failing to build) and re-release again?? 🙄

It seems there are no short-term plans upstream to make new stable releases...

[cottsay]

how to treat incremental "alpha" releases upstream.

I don't have any good ideas here, unfortunately.

the old version ... had some build errors

The 4.3.0-2 release appears to be building successfully on Ubuntu Noble amd64, but I see now that the last version to build successfully on Noble arm64 and RHEL 9 was 4.2.0-7. Should we revert back to that version instead, while a new solution for releasing the package is devised?

[cottsay]

To unblock the current regressions, I'm going to merge this revert PR so that we can unblock the Kilted sync. It's not a solution though.

[jlblancoc]

@cottsay
I guess we should roll back to the even older version 4.2.0-7 that built on all archs. I could do the PR here if you want.

After that, perhaps the only solution to allow an eventual final release 4.3.0 (non "alpha"!) is to manually remove the "4.3*" tags and branches on the gbp repo...