On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 10:00:17 +0100 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 26.01.2015 09:35, Stefan Tauner wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 02:54:35 +0100 > > Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 19.01.2015 21:39, Stefan Tauner wrote: > >>> libusb-win32 is using a different header file name for a while, use > >>> that on Windows builds to make clear that this is currently the > >>> correct header to include. > >> Yes, but at http://flashrom.org/Windows we still direct users to the old > >> libusb-win32 version which uses the old usb.h. > >> As long as those instructions are in the wiki, this will introduce > >> additional breakage. > > That's because that wiki page is even more outdated than libusb-0. :) > > > >>> Hopefully this will change soonish with migrating away from libusb-0. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <[email protected]> > >>> Acked-by: Stefan Tauner <[email protected]> > >>> --- > >>> Makefile | 5 +++++ > >>> dediprog.c | 8 ++++++++ > >>> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile > >>> index 54ebfe4..03670d2 100644 > >>> --- a/Makefile > >>> +++ b/Makefile > >>> @@ -843,7 +843,12 @@ endef > >>> export LIBPCI_TEST > >>> > >>> define LIBUSB0_TEST > >>> +#include "platform.h" > >>> +#if IS_WINDOWS > >>> +#include <lusb0_usb.h> > >>> +#else > >>> #include <usb.h> > >>> +#endif > >>> int main(int argc, char **argv) > >>> { > >>> (void) argc; > >> We'd have to fix the wiki at the same time we commit this. > > The more important question is if it is worth it at all. Under normal > > circumstances I'd say no, because we should migrate to libusb-1 ASAP. > > In retrospection of our past development I would that say fixing things > > that are wrong but easy to fix should be done (immediately), even if > > they are obsoleted soon in the best case. > > Agreed. > > > > Is it enough to change the download URL for the precompiled libusb and > > change the name of usb.h in the description or were there other > > build-relevant changes between 1.2.4.0 and 1.2.6.0? > > I tried building natively with libusb-win32 1.2.6.0 and it worked with > your patch. Please adjust both (bin and devel-filter) libusb-win32 > version numbers while you're at it. Done, and the patch was committed in r1877. Thanks. -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner _______________________________________________ flashrom mailing list [email protected] http://www.flashrom.org/mailman/listinfo/flashrom
