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 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.
How did you handle the usbutils breakage?
I did not handle it at all, as I was not aware of it. Now that I'm I'll
file a bug against usbutils and advice the maintainer to add the
necessary #ifdef-ery to keep it building.
So, you are going to force me (hint, I'm the usbutils maintainer)
I know you are the usbutils maintainer.
, to
change my code because libusbx broke their API here?
Force you, no, forcing you to do anything is (luckily) not within my
power. But I can surely ask you nicely to change your code.
That's what other
distros have already tried to tell me earlier today, and I'm going to
push back hard and say that it is a bug in libusbx instead.
I can certainly understand that from your pov this seems as a libusbx
bug. Pete has already tried to explain his reasoning for the change
in his mail to you. And it seems that the problem is that there is
a difference of opinion here on priorities, Pete beliefs following
the USB spec and fixing a historic mistake is more important here, you
belief that API compatibility is more important.
I myself am somewhere in the middle here, I did not think that the
change Pete suggested would be a big deal (how wrong of me), so I agreed
to it. However your reaction shows that API compatibility is a big deal,
and in general I agree with that. So lets try to move forward with this.
I see 3 possible solutions:
1) Revert the change, and do a 1.0.14 release with just that change
right away, before anyone starts depending on the new name
2) Adapt usbutils to work with both versions of the API, as is suggested
in the release announcement. But given what you said above I guess you're
unwilling to do that ?
3) Go with the anonymous union solution discussed before, and do a 1.0.14
release with that change right away.
However we solve this I've learned from this to take API compatibility as
something very important, and the next time we discuss something like this
I will not only vigorously defend ABI but also API compatibility, and I
promise that I will do my very best to make sure that the libusbx-1.0.x
series will stay fully ABI and API compatible for all future releases!
Because we do care about our users, both developers programming against
libusbx and end-users using libusbx through various applications!
Regards,
Hans
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
