On Fri, 25 May 2012 15:25:42 +0200 Tom Gundersen <teg@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Thomas Bächler > <thomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Am 25.05.2012 14:56, schrieb Tobias Powalowski: > >> Hi got this feature request: > >> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/29999 > >> > >> - fedora ditched the libusb usage in favour of the libusbx project. > >> > >> http://www.libusbx.org > >> > >> Shall we move to this too? > > > > Questions not answered in the bug report: > > 1) What is an actual issue solved by libusbx that is present in > > libusb? (by Allan) > > 2) Is it a drop-in replacement that is API-compatible or (better) > > ABI-compatible. > > > > ad 1) I guess there are such issues, otherwise the libusbx people > > wouldn't have been angry enough to make a fork. This point requires > > research. > > From what I gathered, the difference is currently minimal as the > libusb maintainer backported most of the commits from libusbx. I > assume this can not go on forever though... > > > ad 2) If it is ABI-compatible, there is no harm in switching right > > now, as libusbx = libusb-1 + active development + more bugfixes. If > > it is only API-compatible or partially incompatible, we would need > > a strong reason to actually switch. > > It was advertised as a drop in replacement, I assumed this means ABI > compatible, but this we must check. > > -t What about libusb-0.1/libusb-compat compatibility? Quick check in core packages shows it as dependancy for some packages. Regards,
