Am 25.05.2012 15:21, schrieb Tom Gundersen: > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Tobias Powalowski > <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
