Am 27.05.2012 12:13, schrieb Tom Gundersen: > 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 libusbx is now in testing.
greetings tpowa -- Tobias Powalowski Archlinux Developer & Package Maintainer (tpowa) http://www.archlinux.org [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
