On 2012.04.23 08:40, Hans de Goede wrote:
I can understand you not being happy with these addons, but without them
code compiled against Peter's version of get_version may crash, so I
strongly
prefer adding them (despite your concerns)
Well, my concerns go a bit further than that.
If we go
Jose Pablo wrote:
I think Vincent is right. I am pretty sure you guys have a lot of good
ideas for the library but if you keep that attitude you will not get
it serious. It seen you guys are taking the project by force
I think that's the intent, yes.
--
Tim Roberts, t...@probo.com
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:31 AM, Hans de Goede hdego...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi,
On 04/23/2012 07:31 PM, Garret Kelly wrote:
Then we should begin actively discussing this issue with the people
who it _is_ up to. Preferably who're going to be doing the distro
packaging, because they're going to
On 2012.04.23 18:31, Garret Kelly wrote:
I'll agree with you that end-users and developers may prefer a fork of
a given project, but many modern distributions offer both sides of a
forked package, and even multiple versions of the forked packages in
the case of the JRE. Additionally,_because_
On 2012.04.23 13:15, Michael Plante wrote:
Peter's recently been very accommodating about copying patches that he
probably doesn't want in libusb, and quickly. I don't know if you've
noticed that.
Yeah. Isn't it strange what people will do when they realize that, far
from what they believed
Hans de Goede wrote:
my vote *in this case* goes to adding the 2 fields.
I pushed the attached commit to libusb-stuge.git x/version_rc_describe
which is based on current libusbx.git master.
Anyone wanting to apply the change can grab the patch, or maybe save
time with:
git fetch
