For applications that explicitly load libusb.so at runtime with a dlopen
call.
In that case the application is broken. Using libusb.so instead of
libusb-0.1.so.4 does not guarantee that the ABI is the right one.
libusb will (probably) soon be released with a totally new ABI. Both old
and
Richard Burton a écrit :
You should not need the .so file at runtime, but only during
development. That's why the .so file is in the -dev package, as for
other libraries, and as required by the policy.
Why do you need the .so file in the library package?
For applications that explicitly
You should not need the .so file at runtime, but only during development.
That's why the .so file is in the -dev package, as for other libraries, and
as required by the policy.
Why do you need the .so file in the library package?
For applications that explicitly load libusb.so at runtime
libusb package provides no libusb.so, other distros do (checked on redhat)
and
some software expects it. Please provide a libusb.so symlink to real lib
file.
Just install libusb-dev.
That's a workaround, but libusb is provided by the libusb package, not the
libusb-dev package. It
Richard Burton a écrit :
libusb package provides no libusb.so, other distros do (checked on
redhat) and
some software expects it. Please provide a libusb.so symlink to real
lib file.
Just install libusb-dev.
That's a workaround, but libusb is provided by the libusb package, not
the
Package: libusb-0.1-4
Version: 2:0.1.11-6
Severity: wishlist
libusb package provides no libusb.so, other distros do (checked on redhat) and
some software expects it. Please provide a libusb.so symlink to real lib file.
Thanks,
Richard.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
6 matches
Mail list logo
