On 24.9.2012 22.31, "Greg KH" <greg@xxxxxxxxx> 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 the whole project as one that does not care for its users? So, yes I do not agree that it was indicative of a project that does not care about it users and I do think the way you come across is indicative of overreacting. > >> If you think rewriting to remove that dependency makes more sense >> than applying a trivial fix Pete promised to deliver, go ahead, >> especially if you think that is what *your* users will want. > >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. If you read what I wrote I said "Pete promised" so if wanted all you would have had to do was to say so. It is not nice when things break on you but a polite and constructive approach usually is usually the best policy to get things going again. >That shows that libusbx is really the problem here, and that maybe I >shouldn't depend on it anymore. I don't think anyone has said that *the* change in the libusbx is the source of the problem, I've just said that you could fix it fast, probably faster that doing this email exchange, if you wanted to. I'm sure libusbx developers would be sorry to loose you so don't let my voice affect your decision as they seem to take the adult view of this and are willing to co-operate with you although you seem to be ready to fly off at the handle before the discussion has hardly started. br Kusti -- 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
