I've made a centos7 container on the farm today and updated the docs to reflect the nuances. The libusb* branches seem to be building ok there (with some warnings for system headers).
Do I get it right that there is no libi2c-devel (smbus.h and userland i2c-dev.h) in the distro? Jim On Sun, Dec 26, 2021, 23:20 Manuel Wolfshant <[email protected]> wrote: > On 12/27/21 00:06, Manuel Wolfshant wrote: > > Hello > > I've packaged > https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/tree/fightwarn-libusb-1.0+0.1 for > EL7 and uploaded the resulting rpms to > https://wolfy.fedorapeople.org/nut-2.7.5-0.nut_fightwarn/ > These packages are built against stock libusb i.e. compatible with > libusb-0.1. Minimal testing shows them as functional but as always, YMMV. > I had to disable support for i2c, it triggered some build errors and I am > in no mood to debug them. > > As a sidenote, upsc reports 2.7.4.1 not 2.7.5 so probably I should rename > the packages as well: > [wolfy@wolfy epel-7-x86_64]$ which upsc > /usr/bin/upsc > [wolfy@wolfy epel-7-x86_64]$ rpm -qf /usr/bin/upsc > nut-client-2.7.5-0.nut_fightwarn_libusb.wolfy.x86_64 > [wolfy@wolfy epel-7-x86_64]$ upsc -V > Network UPS Tools upscmd 2.7.4.1 > > > I'll try to build another set of packages against libusbx aka EL7's > libusb-1.0 > > The packages built against libusb-1.0 are available at > https://wolfy.fedorapeople.org/nut-2.7.5-0.nut_fightwarn_libusbx/ > > For now I've left in place ( at https://wolfy.fedorapeople.org/nut ) the > old versions of nut I built 4-5 years ago but, if memory serves, those were > built for EL6 which has an year since it is no longer supported. Therefore > I recommend against using them and I will probably remove them after New > Year's day. > > > wolfy > > > > Manuel > > On 12/26/21 12:07, Strahil Nikolov via Nut-upsuser wrote: > > Hey Jim, > > > do we have precompiled binaries or rpm ? > > Best Regards, > Strahil Nikolov > > On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 11:51, Jim Klimov via Nut-upsdev > <[email protected]> <[email protected]> > wrote: > > This work has originally delayed merging of libusb-1.0 support (from > issue https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/issues/300 and several > candidate branches to pick from), in particular because with the original > codebase sporting thousands of build warnings, it was hard to notice any > new "offences" introduced by this large set of changes. I was afraid that > merging it would even have to wait until after the next NUT release, but in > the end found that some remaining warnings in the original USB-related NUT > codebase made those branches' changes the better solution. > > Now, before we find the hard way if the cure is worse than the disease, > I would like to ask people with USB-connected UPSes (and also those using > the MGE SHUT protocol) to build and test > https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/tree/fightwarn-libusb-1.0+0.1 > branch with their setups - hopefully hitting as many OSes and CPU types as > feasible, as well as trying both libusb-0.1, libusb-1.0 (and not sure about > libusb-0.1-compat). > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Nut-upsuser mailing > [email protected]https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser > > > _______________________________________________ > Nut-upsuser mailing list > [email protected] > https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser >
_______________________________________________ Nut-upsdev mailing list [email protected] https://alioth-lists.debian.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsdev
