Re: [pyusb-users] Issue 10 feedback

2013-01-28 Thread Xiaofan Chen
On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Emmanuel Blot wrote: > The switch from libusb to libusbx is not confusing -on its own- to me. > > However, IMHO it is quite fuzzy to have a module that currently > installs on Wheezy version 1.0.11, whereas libusb official latest > release is 1.0.9... No surprise

Re: [pyusb-users] Issue 10 feedback

2013-01-28 Thread Emmanuel Blot
> Actually most of the Linux distros are now using libusbx as the > libusb-1.0 API provider, Fedora, Debian/Ubuntu, Arch, etc. > > libusbx.org have some more information if you feel it is > confusing. > http://libusbx.org/ Hi Xiaofan, The switch from libusb to libusbx is not confusing -on its own

Re: [pyusb-users] Issue 10 feedback

2013-01-27 Thread Xiaofan Chen
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 5:22 AM, Emmanuel Blot wrote: >> I not like that change. If someone want to use both versions, rename >> it and use.. > > I agree: who many installations would be broken once pyusb is updated? > All Python modules that depends on "pyusb" would have to be updated, > this is

Re: [pyusb-users] Issue 10 feedback

2013-01-27 Thread Xiaofan Chen
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Emmanuel Blot wrote: > [OT] "libusb-1.0-0" on Debian is now using libusbx, which is quite confusing. > Actually most of the Linux distros are now using libusbx as the libusb-1.0 API provider, Fedora, Debian/Ubuntu, Arch, etc. libusbx.org have some more informatio

Re: [pyusb-users] Issue 10 feedback

2013-01-27 Thread Emmanuel Blot
> Debian/ubuntu packages.. > when you make: apt-get install python-usb > > the latest (in the dev branch) is 0.4.3-1 > The 1.0 (alfa 1, 2, 3.. etc..) must be packaged ! I do prefer using pip to manage Python package on Debian / Ubuntu / whatever / .. OS X. The main reason is actually to use severa

Re: [pyusb-users] Issue 10 feedback

2013-01-27 Thread Wander Lairson Costa
2013/1/26 Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn : >> From: wander.lair...@gmail.com >> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 16:56:13 -0200 >> To: pyusb-users@lists.sourceforge.net >> Subject: Re: [pyusb-users] Issue 10 feedback > >> >> 2013/1/26 Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn : >> >

Re: [pyusb-users] Issue 10 feedback

2013-01-26 Thread Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn
> From: wander.lair...@gmail.com > Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 16:56:13 -0200 > To: pyusb-users@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [pyusb-users] Issue 10 feedback > > 2013/1/26 Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn : > > I not like that change. If someone want to use both version

Re: [pyusb-users] Issue 10 feedback

2013-01-26 Thread Emmanuel Blot
> I not like that change. If someone want to use both versions, rename > it and use.. I agree: who many installations would be broken once pyusb is updated? All Python modules that depends on "pyusb" would have to be updated, this is not a trivial task. My two cents, Manu. --

Re: [pyusb-users] Issue 10 feedback

2013-01-26 Thread Wander Lairson Costa
2013/1/26 Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn : > I not like that change. If someone want to use both versions, rename > it and use.. > > I think that PyUSB 1.0 must be called "stable" (I use and not have problems > of the library). > > Another problem: only PyUSB 0.4 is packaged. Who is the packager? > What

Re: [pyusb-users] Issue 10 feedback

2013-01-26 Thread Alan Jhonn Aguiar Schwyn
I not like that change. If someone want to use both versions, renameit and use.. I think that PyUSB 1.0 must be called "stable" (I use and not have problemsof the library). Another problem: only PyUSB 0.4 is packaged. Who is the packager? > From: wander.lair...@gmail.com > Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013