Re: Error: libusb-1.0.so.0 is needed....

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



On 12/14/2014 07:58 PM, Stephen Harris wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 07:22:01PM -0500, Mark LaPierre wrote:
On 12/14/14 07:29, ken wrote:
uname -r; rpm -q libusb

CentOS 6.6 says:
[mlapier@mushroom ~]$ uname -r; rpm -q libusb
2.6.32-504.1.3.el6.i686
libusb-0.1.12-23.el6.i686

CentOS 5 has:
   libusb-0.1.12

CentOS 6 has:
   libusb-0.1.12
   libusb1-1.0.9

CentOS 7 has:
   libusb-0.1.4
   libusbx-1.0.15

Thanks to everyone who's replied thus far. It seems the information given at http://pkgs.org/ isn't fully correct.

These multiple libusb's throw quite a bit of ambiguity and doubt into the process of compiling and linking sources which ask for libusb v.1.0.x. Symlinking or changing a Makefile or *.h file might allow compilation to succeed (or not), then might successful linking (or not), and then might let the executable(s) run correctly (or not); the last part I (or anyone else) might not find out until after the merchandise return deadline has passed. Who knows? One thing is certain: Canon could have put a little more effort into their code and provided a friendlier and less doubtful driver package.

Speaking of improvements: Better commands for displaying this info would be:

cat /etc/redhat-release
rpm -qa | grep libusb

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos




[Index of Archives]     [CentOS]     [CentOS Announce]     [CentOS Development]     [CentOS ARM Devel]     [CentOS Docs]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Carrier Grade Linux]     [Linux Media]     [Asterisk]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Xorg]     [Linux USB]
  Powered by Linux