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

[Vytautas Stankevičius]

On Fri, 25 May 2012 15:25:42 +0200
Tom Gundersen <teg at jklm.no> wrote:

> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Thomas Bächler
> <thomas at 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

What about libusb-0.1/libusb-compat compatibility? Quick check in core
packages shows it as dependancy for some packages.

Regards,