Re: [Libusbx-devel] [Libusb-devel] libusb is dead - long live libusbx!
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 Providenza Boekelheide, Inc. -- For Developers, A Lot Can Happen In A Second. Boundary is the first to Know...and Tell You. Monitor Your Applications in Ultra-Fine Resolution. Try it FREE! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-d2dvs2 ___ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
Re: [Libusbx-devel] [Libusb-devel] libusb is dead - long live libusbx!
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 want to be a part of this. Short self intro: I'm a libusb developer *and* the Fedora package maintainer of libusbx and one of the forkers. One of the reasons why libusbx-1.0.x is a drop in replacement and thus steals the soname, is because I specifically asked it to do so! Why? Because I / Fedora needed a newer version of libusb for both a lot of bugfixes and some new API calls (specifically the get_speed function). IIRC we also had discussion with some of the Debian maintainers, and they welcomes the idea of a drop in replacement fork too, since they too wanted a proper release with all the accumulated bugfixes in there. Very good! I've asked Peter about doing a release before the start of the Fedora 16 cycle, and he said that I could count on a 1.0.9 in time for the devel freeze for Fedora 16 beta. We're now past the beta release of Fedora 16, so 9 months since I first asked for a release, and there would still not have been a 1.0.9 if it were not for the libusbx fork. Yes after we announced the fork Peter finally managed to roll a tarbal, but if we had not forked I'm 99.9% sure we would still not have one! I agree. As recent as last months, I asked Peter about the 1.0.9 release, the answer to my question why the release of 1.0.9 still did not happen is that Obviously because it's not ready yet. http://libusb.6.n5.nabble.com/libusb-1-0-9-release-td5581933.html And then once we announced the fork, suddenly Peter went into action and pushed many patches (some without discussions on the mailing list) and then released libusb-1.0.9. Various people have been both begging Peter to do a release for more then a year now, as well as asking him to step down as a maintainer ... Some examples: http://libusb.6.n5.nabble.com/ETA-for-1-0-9-td3874739.html http://libusb.6.n5.nabble.com/libusb-1-0-9-td5044335.html Note that at this point in time Peter can still avoid the pending fragmentation of libusb by stepping down as a maintainer. The problem is that Peter is operating libusb as a dictator, with for example only him having commit rights to the master git branch, and he is doing a very poor job at it! I think that Peter has done great jobs for quite some libusb.git codes and is a great contributor to the libusb-devel mailing list. However I agree with you that he has done a poor job as the sole active maintainer of libusb. That is the main reason for the fork. If libusb and libusbx merge again, that is good for the community, I think Peter can still be a maintainer, but not the sole maintainer. Contrast this to libusbx where various people have commit rights, rights to administrate the domain name, and are sf.net project admins. -- Xiaofan -- For Developers, A Lot Can Happen In A Second. Boundary is the first to Know...and Tell You. Monitor Your Applications in Ultra-Fine Resolution. Try it FREE! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-d2dvs2 ___ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
Re: [Libusbx-devel] [Libusb-devel] libusb is dead - long live libusbx!
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_ developers and end-users have their own preferences (and because there are packages from thousands of developers on a single system) a distro must be able to provide, in coexistence, the preferred libraries of each user and developer on the system. I'd agree with you there, if our fork was prompted by the reasons most forks exist (differences with regards to features to be provided), with both projects expected to coexist more or less peacefully. However, the prime reason we forked is because, under Peter's sole guidance, we very much think libusb is not going anywhere, especially as regulars of this list should already have seen signs of the project's slow death. Therefore we strongly believe that anybody who still uses libusb at this stage, and who value their time, should switch to libusbx, not as a matter of libusbx is better in terms of features (which we believe it is), but rather as a matter of choosing libusb is akin to writing a suicide note for your application. As such, it doesn't boil down to a matter of user's preference, a la KDE vs Gnome, but rather a matter of preventing users from paying the price of choosing a dead-end project. Also, you should realize that there's a very good reason the subject of this thread starts with libusb is dead. This line is hardly intended as a joke. Now, if you haven't followed the discussions on libusb-devel, because it is fairly hostile, that's a message that will be very difficult to convey. We do hope however that 250 commits and 2 years without a release, with 3/4th of this time under Peter's guidance, should tell you that something is really not quite right as far as libusb is concerned, and that, if you value your time, and there exists a competing project, you should steer away from using libusb altogether. Regards, /Pete -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
