On Sun, May 27, 2012 at 9:44 AM, Tobias Powalowski <[email protected]> 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 >>> <[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?
+1 -t
