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 >> <[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? > Would it be ok for you if i bring this to testing repository?
-- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
