Rotary collection: gz-cmake, gz-utils

[scpeters]

Prototype of gz-rotary-* formulae, inspired by the Rotary release repos proposal in gazebo-tooling/release-tools#1446. The goal of this prototype is to show how gz-rotary-* formulae could be added that would always build against each other from the main branch and would require minimal changes when creating stable branches or releases. As such, I propose that all formula names are all prefixed with gz-rotary- (even gz-rotary-sdformat). This PR implements gz-rotary-cmake and gz-rotary-utils that install from main branch and conflict with jetty versions.

• When new formulae are created, conflicts need to be added to the gz-rotary-* formulae, similiar to the gz-jetty-* conflicts in this prototype.
• Currently our brew CI uses package major version number to install dependencies, so we maintain numbered aliases that point to gz-rotary-* formulae.
• To avoid requiring an explicity version tag, this prototype uses only the head specification, which requires installing with --HEAD (see brew CI: install with --HEAD if necessary gazebo-tooling/release-tools#1451). The alternative is to use url instead of head and explicitly specify the version tag (like here).

[scpeters]

I will retarget this at #3342 and create the gz-rotary-* formulae from the jetty formulae that already depend on the gz-jetty-* aliases

[azeey]

The ubuntu packages use just the package name without the version number, but here we're using the gz-rotary prefix. Can we avoid this? Would it be problematic if just use the unversioned package names on all platforms for Rotary?

[scpeters]

The ubuntu packages use just the package name without the version number, but here we're using the gz-rotary prefix. Can we avoid this? Would it be problematic if just use the unversioned package names on all platforms for Rotary?

sure, let's try it

[scpeters]

The ubuntu packages use just the package name without the version number, but here we're using the gz-rotary prefix. Can we avoid this? Would it be problematic if just use the unversioned package names on all platforms for Rotary?

sure, let's try it

done in 4a6bf3a and 68d88f9

[scpeters]

The ubuntu packages use just the package name without the version number, but here we're using the gz-rotary prefix. Can we avoid this? Would it be problematic if just use the unversioned package names on all platforms for Rotary?

sure, let's try it

done in 4a6bf3a and 68d88f9

after discussion, we decided to revert this to prevent user confusion with unversioned formulae that are actually unstable

[azeey]

LGTM. Just one question

[scpeters]

opened a draft PR for updating our CI scripts to install with --HEAD

would also need to update macos github workflow scripts in each repo that has one

[scpeters]

opened a draft PR for updating our CI scripts to install with --HEAD

would also need to update macos github workflow scripts in each repo that has one

PR is ready for review:

• brew CI: install with --HEAD if necessary gazebo-tooling/release-tools#1451