On piÄ…, lut 07, 2014 at 09:12:08 +0100, Juergen Lock wrote:
> Hi!
>  This came up on irc so I tried to build a linux libusb port (before
> I learned about ports/146895), mine uses linux_base-gentoo-stage3
> like linux_kdump with a src/lib/libusb head snapshot so it's more
> up to date than wkoszek's build (ports/146895), and it's really
> easy to update it again.  Also maybe it can be used as linux
> libusb-1.0.so too; I didn't actually test it tho.
>  Should this be committed?  Is wkoszek's version better since it
> also builds on < 10.x?  Comments welcome...
>  wkoszek's version:
>       http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=146895
>  Mine:
>       http://people.freebsd.org/~nox/tmp/linux_libusb.shar
>  Distfile:
> http://people.freebsd.org/~nox/tmp/distfiles/linux_libusb-11.0r261448.tar.bz2
>  10/amd64 package:
> http://people.freebsd.org/~nox/tmp/packages/10amd64/linux_libusb-11.0r261448.txz
> (built via:
>       poudriere bulk -v -j 10amd64 -p custom devel/linux_libusb
> - btw for some reason the dependency emulators/linux_base-gentoo-stage3
> doesn't build for 10i386 in poudriere bulk, I get a pkg segfault.  bapt
> Cc'd...)


What would be the reason for this update?

My stuff may be out of date, but it was all tested and working. I verified
it with Linux'ish lsusb(1) and USB-based FPGA JTAG programmer, for which
this stuff was written.

Can you show the diff between USB code from src/lib and from the distfile?

Instead of having a port with .c code, I'd drive towards having src/lib
changes (if any) be commited. And then that port only has to do:

        cp -rf src/lib/libusb port/tmp/dir

and build it with different -DDEFINES if necessary.


Wojciech A. Koszek
freebsd-usb@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-usb-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to