FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > ArchLinux > ArchLinux Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-25-2012, 12:56 PM
Tobias Powalowski
 
Default libusbx as replacement for libusb

Hi got this feature request:
https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/29999

- fedora ditched the libusb usage in favour of the libusbx project.

http://www.libusbx.org

Shall we move to this too?
greetings
tpowa

--
Tobias Powalowski
Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa)
http://www.archlinux.org
tpowa@archlinux.org
 
Old 05-25-2012, 01:18 PM
Thomas Bächler
 
Default libusbx as replacement for libusb

Am 25.05.2012 14:56, schrieb Tobias Powalowski:
> Hi got this feature request:
> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/29999
>
> - fedora ditched the libusb usage in favour of the libusbx project.
>
> http://www.libusbx.org
>
> Shall we move to this too?

Questions not answered in the bug report:
1) What is an actual issue solved by libusbx that is present in libusb?
(by Allan)
2) Is it a drop-in replacement that is API-compatible or (better)
ABI-compatible.

ad 1) I guess there are such issues, otherwise the libusbx people
wouldn't have been angry enough to make a fork. This point requires
research.

ad 2) If it is ABI-compatible, there is no harm in switching right now,
as libusbx = libusb-1 + active development + more bugfixes. If it is
only API-compatible or partially incompatible, we would need a strong
reason to actually switch.
 
Old 05-25-2012, 01:21 PM
Tom Gundersen
 
Default libusbx as replacement for libusb

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Tobias Powalowski
<tobias.powalowski@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Hi got this feature request:
> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/29999
>
> - fedora ditched the libusb usage in favour of the libusbx project.

Seems Debian have done/will do the same.

> http://www.libusbx.org
>
> Shall we move to this too?

I am not very familiar with the background story, but from what I can
gather from libusb-devel[0], it seems that the fork was done for a
good reason, has lots of support, and no counterarguments have (as far
as I could find at least) been presented by the libusb maintainer.

To sum up, the main complaints were: libusb was not begin released for
more than two years (it has now finally been released, after the fork
happened), and the maintainer was seen as hostile to new
contributions.

Assuming the impression I got is correct, I would be in favor of switching.

Cheers,

Tom

[0]: <http://libusb.6.n5.nabble.com/libusb-is-dead-long-live-libusbx-td5651413.html>
 
Old 05-25-2012, 01:25 PM
Tom Gundersen
 
Default libusbx as replacement for libusb

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
> Am 25.05.2012 14:56, schrieb Tobias Powalowski:
>> Hi got this feature request:
>> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/29999
>>
>> - fedora ditched the libusb usage in favour of the libusbx project.
>>
>> http://www.libusbx.org
>>
>> Shall we move to this too?
>
> Questions not answered in the bug report:
> 1) What is an actual issue solved by libusbx that is present in libusb?
> (by Allan)
> 2) Is it a drop-in replacement that is API-compatible or (better)
> ABI-compatible.
>
> ad 1) I guess there are such issues, otherwise the libusbx people
> wouldn't have been angry enough to make a fork. This point requires
> research.

From what I gathered, the difference is currently minimal as the
libusb maintainer backported most of the commits from libusbx. I
assume this can not go on forever though...

> ad 2) If it is ABI-compatible, there is no harm in switching right now,
> as libusbx = libusb-1 + active development + more bugfixes. If it is
> only API-compatible or partially incompatible, we would need a strong
> reason to actually switch.

It was advertised as a drop in replacement, I assumed this means ABI
compatible, but this we must check.

-t
 
Old 05-25-2012, 01:42 PM
Stéphane Gaudreault
 
Default libusbx as replacement for libusb

Le 2012-05-25 09:25, Tom Gundersen a écrit :
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
>> Am 25.05.2012 14:56, schrieb Tobias Powalowski:
>>> Hi got this feature request:
>>> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/29999
>>>
>>> - fedora ditched the libusb usage in favour of the libusbx project.
>>>
>>> http://www.libusbx.org
>>>
>>> Shall we move to this too?
>> Questions not answered in the bug report:
>> 1) What is an actual issue solved by libusbx that is present in libusb?
>> (by Allan)
>> 2) Is it a drop-in replacement that is API-compatible or (better)
>> ABI-compatible.
>>
>> ad 1) I guess there are such issues, otherwise the libusbx people
>> wouldn't have been angry enough to make a fork. This point requires
>> research.
> From what I gathered, the difference is currently minimal as the
> libusb maintainer backported most of the commits from libusbx. I
> assume this can not go on forever though...
>
>> ad 2) If it is ABI-compatible, there is no harm in switching right now,
>> as libusbx = libusb-1 + active development + more bugfixes. If it is
>> only API-compatible or partially incompatible, we would need a strong
>> reason to actually switch.
> It was advertised as a drop in replacement, I assumed this means ABI
> compatible, but this we must check.
>
> -t

I was curious, so I tried the pkg from AUR [1]. My usb stuff still work,
so I guess compatibility is not a issue. The choice will probably be
done by considering which of the two projects is the most promising.

Stéphane

[1] https://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=59473
 
Old 05-25-2012, 02:14 PM
Tobias Powalowski
 
Default libusbx as replacement for libusb

Am 25.05.2012 15:21, schrieb Tom Gundersen:
> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Tobias Powalowski
> <tobias.powalowski@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Hi got this feature request:
>> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/29999
>>
>> - fedora ditched the libusb usage in favour of the libusbx project.
> Seems Debian have done/will do the same.
>
>> http://www.libusbx.org
>>
>> Shall we move to this too?
> I am not very familiar with the background story, but from what I can
> gather from libusb-devel[0], it seems that the fork was done for a
> good reason, has lots of support, and no counterarguments have (as far
> as I could find at least) been presented by the libusb maintainer.
>
> To sum up, the main complaints were: libusb was not begin released for
> more than two years (it has now finally been released, after the fork
> happened), and the maintainer was seen as hostile to new
> contributions.
>
> Assuming the impression I got is correct, I would be in favor of switching.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom
>
> [0]: <http://libusb.6.n5.nabble.com/libusb-is-dead-long-live-libusbx-td5651413.html>
replaces=('libusb1' 'libusb')
provides=('libusb')
would that be ok in PKGBUILD?

--
Tobias Powalowski
Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa)
http://www.archlinux.org
tpowa@archlinux.org
 
Old 05-27-2012, 07:44 AM
Tobias Powalowski
 
Default libusbx as replacement for libusb

Am 25.05.2012 16:14, schrieb Tobias Powalowski:
> Am 25.05.2012 15:21, schrieb Tom Gundersen:
>> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Tobias Powalowski
>> <tobias.powalowski@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi got this feature request:
>>> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/29999
>>>
>>> - fedora ditched the libusb usage in favour of the libusbx project.
>> Seems Debian have done/will do the same.
>>
>>> http://www.libusbx.org
>>>
>>> Shall we move to this too?
>> I am not very familiar with the background story, but from what I can
>> gather from libusb-devel[0], it seems that the fork was done for a
>> good reason, has lots of support, and no counterarguments have (as far
>> as I could find at least) been presented by the libusb maintainer.
>>
>> To sum up, the main complaints were: libusb was not begin released for
>> more than two years (it has now finally been released, after the fork
>> happened), and the maintainer was seen as hostile to new
>> contributions.
>>
>> Assuming the impression I got is correct, I would be in favor of switching.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> [0]: <http://libusb.6.n5.nabble.com/libusb-is-dead-long-live-libusbx-td5651413.html>
> replaces=('libusb1' 'libusb')
> provides=('libusb')
> would that be ok in PKGBUILD?
>
Would it be ok for you if i bring this to testing repository?

--
Tobias Powalowski
Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa)
http://www.archlinux.org
tpowa@archlinux.org
 
Old 05-27-2012, 10:13 AM
Tom Gundersen
 
Default libusbx as replacement for libusb

On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Tobias Powalowski
<tobias.powalowski@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Am 25.05.2012 16:14, schrieb Tobias Powalowski:
>> Am 25.05.2012 15:21, schrieb Tom Gundersen:
>>> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Tobias Powalowski
>>> <tobias.powalowski@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi got this feature request:
>>>> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/29999
>>>>
>>>> - fedora ditched the libusb usage in favour of the libusbx project.
>>> Seems Debian have done/will do the same.
>>>
>>>> http://www.libusbx.org
>>>>
>>>> Shall we move to this too?
>>> I am not very familiar with the background story, but from what I can
>>> gather from libusb-devel[0], it seems that the fork was done for a
>>> good reason, has lots of support, and no counterarguments have (as far
>>> as I could find at least) been presented by the libusb maintainer.
>>>
>>> To sum up, the main complaints were: libusb was not begin released for
>>> more than two years (it has now finally been released, after the fork
>>> happened), and the maintainer was seen as hostile to new
>>> contributions.
>>>
>>> Assuming the impression I got is correct, I would be in favor of switching.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> [0]: <http://libusb.6.n5.nabble.com/libusb-is-dead-long-live-libusbx-td5651413.html>
>> replaces=('libusb1' 'libusb')
>> provides=('libusb')
>> would that be ok in PKGBUILD?
>>
> Would it be ok for you if i bring this to testing repository?

+1

-t
 
Old 06-01-2012, 07:19 AM
Tobias Powalowski
 
Default libusbx as replacement for libusb

Am 27.05.2012 12:13, schrieb Tom Gundersen:
> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Tobias Powalowski
> <tobias.powalowski@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Am 25.05.2012 16:14, schrieb Tobias Powalowski:
>>> Am 25.05.2012 15:21, schrieb Tom Gundersen:
>>>> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Tobias Powalowski
>>>> <tobias.powalowski@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi got this feature request:
>>>>> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/29999
>>>>>
>>>>> - fedora ditched the libusb usage in favour of the libusbx project.
>>>> Seems Debian have done/will do the same.
>>>>
>>>>> http://www.libusbx.org
>>>>>
>>>>> Shall we move to this too?
>>>> I am not very familiar with the background story, but from what I can
>>>> gather from libusb-devel[0], it seems that the fork was done for a
>>>> good reason, has lots of support, and no counterarguments have (as far
>>>> as I could find at least) been presented by the libusb maintainer.
>>>>
>>>> To sum up, the main complaints were: libusb was not begin released for
>>>> more than two years (it has now finally been released, after the fork
>>>> happened), and the maintainer was seen as hostile to new
>>>> contributions.
>>>>
>>>> Assuming the impression I got is correct, I would be in favor of switching.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>> [0]: <http://libusb.6.n5.nabble.com/libusb-is-dead-long-live-libusbx-td5651413.html>
>>> replaces=('libusb1' 'libusb')
>>> provides=('libusb')
>>> would that be ok in PKGBUILD?
>>>
>> Would it be ok for you if i bring this to testing repository?
> +1
>
> -t
libusbx is now in testing.

greetings
tpowa

--
Tobias Powalowski
Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa)
http://www.archlinux.org
tpowa@archlinux.org
 
Old 06-01-2012, 08:20 AM
Allan McRae
 
Default libusbx as replacement for libusb

On 01/06/12 17:19, Tobias Powalowski wrote:
> Am 27.05.2012 12:13, schrieb Tom Gundersen:
>> On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Tobias Powalowski
>> <tobias.powalowski@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> Am 25.05.2012 16:14, schrieb Tobias Powalowski:
>>>> Am 25.05.2012 15:21, schrieb Tom Gundersen:
>>>>> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Tobias Powalowski
>>>>> <tobias.powalowski@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi got this feature request:
>>>>>> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/29999
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - fedora ditched the libusb usage in favour of the libusbx project.
>>>>> Seems Debian have done/will do the same.
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.libusbx.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shall we move to this too?
>>>>> I am not very familiar with the background story, but from what I can
>>>>> gather from libusb-devel[0], it seems that the fork was done for a
>>>>> good reason, has lots of support, and no counterarguments have (as far
>>>>> as I could find at least) been presented by the libusb maintainer.
>>>>>
>>>>> To sum up, the main complaints were: libusb was not begin released for
>>>>> more than two years (it has now finally been released, after the fork
>>>>> happened), and the maintainer was seen as hostile to new
>>>>> contributions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Assuming the impression I got is correct, I would be in favor of switching.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom
>>>>>
>>>>> [0]: <http://libusb.6.n5.nabble.com/libusb-is-dead-long-live-libusbx-td5651413.html>
>>>> replaces=('libusb1' 'libusb')
>>>> provides=('libusb')
>>>> would that be ok in PKGBUILD?
>>>>
>>> Would it be ok for you if i bring this to testing repository?
>> +1
>>
>> -t
> libusbx is now in testing.
>
> greetings
> tpowa
>

Should be

provides=("libusb=$pkgver")
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:28 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org