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
