sb-de...@lists.sourceforge.net, libusbx-de...@lists.sourceforge.net,
> linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, libusb-win32-de...@lists.sourceforge.net
> Sent: Monday, 24 September, 2012 9:31:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [Libusbx-devel] libusbx-1.0.13 has been released
>
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10
On 2012.09.24 20:26, Greg KH wrote:
I would ask how this library update was tested if someone didn't, at the
very least, test the most common application that uses the library?
Ad hoc, and mostly, as far as I'm concerned, using our sample xusb and
fxload test application and a selected list of
Cc: libusb-de...@lists.sourceforge.net, libusbx-de...@lists.sourceforge.net,
linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, libusb-win32-de...@lists.sourceforge.net
Sent: Monday, 24 September, 2012 9:31:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Libusbx-devel] libusbx-1.0.13 has been released
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:16:25PM +0300, K
On 24.9.2012 22.31, "Greg KH" wrote:
>
>Um, breaking existing applications is not indicative of that, don't you
>agree?
You never make bad calls and you think this was a deliberate
attempt not to care for users? If you think it is a bug and a bad
choice, why not say it, instead of writing down t
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 08:35:07PM +0100, Pete Batard wrote:
> On 2012.09.24 20:31, Greg KH wrote:
> >No one delivered any such "fix", all I got was a bunch of bug reports
> >this morning from the distros saying that usbutils was suddenly broken.
> >That shows that libusbx is really the problem her
On 2012.09.24 20:31, Greg KH wrote:
No one delivered any such "fix", all I got was a bunch of bug reports
this morning from the distros saying that usbutils was suddenly broken.
That shows that libusbx is really the problem here, and that maybe I
shouldn't depend on it anymore.
Could you please
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:16:25PM +0300, Kustaa Nyholm wrote:
> On 24.9.2012 21.47, "Greg KH" wrote:
> >
> >And if I'm going to be forced to change my program, and libusbx has now
> >shown that they don't care about their public api, well, I might as well
> >just rewrite it to remove that dependa
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 09:12:56PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 09/24/2012 08:50 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> >On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 08:36:11PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >>Hi Greg,
> >>
> >>On 09/24/2012 05:07 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 03:52:55PM +0200, Hans de Goed
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 03:20:10PM -0400, Sean McBride wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:47:27 -0700, Greg KH said:
>
> >No, you are forcing me to change my program to have it build with your
> >change, you should do it the other way around. If you want programs to
> >use your library, make it so t
On Mon, 24 Sep 2012 11:47:27 -0700, Greg KH said:
>No, you are forcing me to change my program to have it build with your
>change, you should do it the other way around. If you want programs to
>use your library, make it so that they don't have to be changed at all.
>
>And if I'm going to be forc
On 24.9.2012 21.47, "Greg KH" wrote:
>
>And if I'm going to be forced to change my program, and libusbx has now
>shown that they don't care about their public api, well, I might as well
>just rewrite it to remove that dependancy completly, as it's obvious
>they don't know how to treat their users.
On 2012.09.24 19:50, Greg KH wrote:
Please fix this in libusbx, or bump the .so name so that tools can
properly know that the API has changed, and that they want to build
against the old one.
Well, if you leave us no other alternative, then I guess my vote will be
for option 2, especially as w
Hi,
On 09/24/2012 08:50 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 08:36:11PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi Greg,
On 09/24/2012 05:07 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 03:52:55PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 09/20/2012 11:42 PM, Pete Batard wrote:
Hi,
It with pleasure that
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 08:36:11PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> On 09/24/2012 05:07 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> >On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 03:52:55PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>On 09/20/2012 11:42 PM, Pete Batard wrote:
> >>>Hi,
> >>>
> >>>It with pleasure that I would like
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 07:33:08PM +0100, Pete Batard wrote:
> But the problem really is that libusb (and libusbx prior to v1.0.13)
> has a typo that makes it deviate from the USB specs, which left
> uswith 3 choices:
> 1. leave the typo as is, and say "It's fine to deviate from the USB
> specs for
Hi Greg,
On 09/24/2012 05:07 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 03:52:55PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi,
On 09/20/2012 11:42 PM, Pete Batard wrote:
Hi,
It with pleasure that I would like to announce the release of libusbx
1.0.13. This version brings the following notable changes:
On 2012.09.24 18:24, Greg KH wrote:
I don't think so. Remember, usbutils is the _one_ libusb package that
everyone has on their system. The fact that the libusbx release wasn't
tested with that package makes me wonder how it was tested at all.
Greg,
We made the conscious decision to potentia
Hi,
On 09/24/2012 05:03 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:42:10PM +0100, Pete Batard wrote:
Hi,
It with pleasure that I would like to announce the release of
libusbx 1.0.13. This version brings the following notable changes:
* [MAJOR] Fix a typo in the API with struct libusb_confi
On 24.9.2012 18.03, "Greg KH" wrote:
>libusbx as it's developers really don't care about their users.
A bit richt, I think, to say that libusbx developers do not care
about their users.
To be constructive can you name the broken programs (in addition
to the already mentioned 'usbutils' ), so tha
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 07:59:40PM +0300, Kustaa Nyholm wrote:
> On 24.9.2012 18.03, "Greg KH" wrote:
> >libusbx as it's developers really don't care about their users.
>
> A bit richt, I think, to say that libusbx developers do not care
> about their users.
I don't think so. Remember, usbutils
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 03:52:55PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 09/20/2012 11:42 PM, Pete Batard wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >It with pleasure that I would like to announce the release of libusbx
> >1.0.13. This version brings the following notable changes:
>
> The Fedora packages for libusbx
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:42:10PM +0100, Pete Batard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It with pleasure that I would like to announce the release of
> libusbx 1.0.13. This version brings the following notable changes:
>
> * [MAJOR] Fix a typo in the API with struct libusb_config_descriptor
> where MaxPower was u
Hi,
On 09/20/2012 11:42 PM, Pete Batard wrote:
Hi,
It with pleasure that I would like to announce the release of libusbx
1.0.13. This version brings the following notable changes:
The Fedora packages for libusbx have been upgraded to 1.0.13 now.
Regards,
Hans
--
To unsubscribe from this lis
Hi,
It with pleasure that I would like to announce the release of libusbx
1.0.13. This version brings the following notable changes:
* [MAJOR] Fix a typo in the API with struct libusb_config_descriptor
where MaxPower was used instead of bMaxPower, as per the specs.
If your application was a
24 matches
Mail list logo
