On 01/06/12 17:19, Tobias Powalowski wrote:
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:
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.
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')
Am 25.05.2012 15:21, schrieb Tom Gundersen: provides=('libusb') would that be ok in PKGBUILD?
Would it be ok for you if i bring this to testing repository? +1
-t
Am 27.05.2012 12:13, schrieb Tom Gundersen: libusbx is now in testing.
greetings tpowa
Should be provides=("libusb=$pkgver")