[arch-dev-public] libusbx as replacement for libusb

[Allan McRae]

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 at 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 at 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")