[arch-dev-public] 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.
Shall we move to this too? greetings tpowa
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.
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.
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.
Shall we move to this too?
Questions not answered in the bug report:
- 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
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.
Shall we move to this too?
Questions not answered in the bug report:
- 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
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
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.
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
replaces=('libusb1' 'libusb') provides=('libusb') would that be ok in PKGBUILD?
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.
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
replaces=('libusb1' 'libusb') provides=('libusb') would that be ok in PKGBUILD?
Would it be ok for you if i bring this to testing repository?
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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=$pkgver")
On 1 June 2012 10:20, Allan McRae allan@archlinux.org wrote:
Should be
provides=("libusb=$pkgver")
Also, conflicts=("libusb") is missing.
error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files) libusbx: /usr/include/libusb-1.0/libusb.h exists in filesystem libusbx: /usr/lib/libusb-1.0.a exists in filesystem libusbx: /usr/lib/libusb-1.0.so exists in filesystem libusbx: /usr/lib/libusb-1.0.so.0 exists in filesystem libusbx: /usr/lib/libusb-1.0.so.0.1.0 exists in filesystem libusbx: /usr/lib/pkgconfig/libusb-1.0.pc exists in filesystem
Am 01.06.2012 11:04, schrieb Andrea Scarpino:
On 1 June 2012 10:20, Allan McRae allan@archlinux.org wrote:
Should be
provides=("libusb=$pkgver")
Also, conflicts=("libusb") is missing.
error: failed to commit transaction (conflicting files) libusbx: /usr/include/libusb-1.0/libusb.h exists in filesystem libusbx: /usr/lib/libusb-1.0.a exists in filesystem libusbx: /usr/lib/libusb-1.0.so exists in filesystem libusbx: /usr/lib/libusb-1.0.so.0 exists in filesystem libusbx: /usr/lib/libusb-1.0.so.0.1.0 exists in filesystem libusbx: /usr/lib/pkgconfig/libusb-1.0.pc exists in filesystem
fixed.
participants (6)
-
Allan McRae
-
Andrea Scarpino
-
Stéphane Gaudreault
-
Thomas Bächler
-
Tobias Powalowski
-
Tom Gundersen