Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 18:32:29 +0000 From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bz@FreeBSD.org> To: Juergen Lock <nox@jelal.kn-bremen.de> Cc: freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org, "Wojciech A. Koszek" <wkoszek@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-usb@FreeBSD.org, hselasky@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: CFT: Re: linux libusb again, I made an updated port... Message-ID: <6A6EDDBE-509E-45F2-961D-3EC3788CAD9C@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20140209135905.GA13024@enceladus10.kn-bremen.de> References: <20140207201208.GA59695@enceladus10.kn-bremen.de> <20140207204928.GD12994@FreeBSD.org> <20140208084546.GA74796@enceladus10.kn-bremen.de> <20140209025624.GE12994@FreeBSD.org> <20140209135905.GA13024@enceladus10.kn-bremen.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 09 Feb 2014, at 13:59 , Juergen Lock <nox@jelal.kn-bremen.de> wrote: Hi guys, > On Sun, Feb 09, 2014 at 02:56:24AM +0000, Wojciech A. Koszek wrote: >> On sob, lut 08, 2014 at 09:45:46 +0100, Juergen Lock wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 08:49:28PM +0000, Wojciech A. Koszek wrote: >>>> On pi??, lut 07, 2014 at 09:12:08 +0100, Juergen Lock wrote: >>>>> Hi! >>>>>=20 >>>>> This came up on irc so I tried to build a linux libusb port = (before >>>>> I learned about ports/146895), mine uses linux_base-gentoo-stage3 >>>>> like linux_kdump with a src/lib/libusb head snapshot so it's more >>>>> up to date than wkoszek's build (ports/146895), and it's really >>>>> easy to update it again. Also maybe it can be used as linux >>>>> libusb-1.0.so too; I didn't actually test it tho. >>>>>=20 >>>>> Should this be committed? Is wkoszek's version better since it >>>>> also builds on < 10.x? Comments welcome... >>>>>=20 >>>>> wkoszek's version: >>>>>=20 >>>>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=3D146895 >>>>>=20 >>>>> Mine: >>>>>=20 >>>>> http://people.freebsd.org/~nox/tmp/linux_libusb.shar >>>>>=20 >>>>> Distfile: >>>>>=20 >>>>> = http://people.freebsd.org/~nox/tmp/distfiles/linux_libusb-11.0r261448.tar.= bz2 >>>>>=20 >>>>> 10/amd64 package: >>>>>=20 >>>>> = http://people.freebsd.org/~nox/tmp/packages/10amd64/linux_libusb-11.0r2614= 48.txz >>>>>=20 >>>>> (built via: >>>>>=20 >>>>> poudriere bulk -v -j 10amd64 -p custom devel/linux_libusb >>>>>=20 >>>>> - btw for some reason the dependency = emulators/linux_base-gentoo-stage3 >>>>> doesn't build for 10i386 in poudriere bulk, I get a pkg segfault. = bapt >>>>> Cc'd...) >>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>> Juergen, >>> Hi! >>>>=20 >>>> What would be the reason for this update? >>>>=20 >>>> My stuff may be out of date, but it was all tested and working. I = verified >>>> it with Linux'ish lsusb(1) and USB-based FPGA JTAG programmer, for = which >>>> this stuff was written. >>>>=20 >>> I was just thinking an updated version may be useful, but if it's >>> already working for everyone maybe less so... >>>=20 >>> Or would it work as a linux libusb-1.0.so too? I know the libusb = 1.0 >>> stuff added some functions since 9.x at least... maybe hps would = know >>> (Cc'd.) >>>=20 >>=20 >> Juergen, >>=20 >> I think this package is useful and is looking for maintainer, so if = you have >> time and energy, I'm OK with upgrading it, but I suggest testing it = first. >> Bjoern might be interested too. >>=20 > You mean bz@ ? Cc'd. I tried testing lsusb from debian sid but it = printed Thanks. > nothing, neither with my nor with your older version, but maybe it's = just > `too new' for our current linuxolator. I got a lsusb to work after a bit more hacking. But that wasn=92t the = end of the story. >=20 >>>> Can you show the diff between USB code from src/lib and from the = distfile? >>>>=20 >>> That's just a checkout from head, see the port Makefile for how it's >>> generated. (.if defined(BOOTSTRAP)...) >>>=20 >>>> Instead of having a port with .c code, I'd drive towards having = src/lib >>>> changes (if any) be commited. And then that port only has to do: >>>>=20 >>>> cp -rf src/lib/libusb port/tmp/dir >>>>=20 >>>> and build it with different -DDEFINES if necessary. >>>>=20 >>> That's what I orginally had but hps suggested I check out from head >>> instead. (Tho that was when I couldn't get it building at first, = which >>> turned out to be just a CFLAGS -I problem so the 10.0 code should = now >>> build this way as well.) >>=20 >> I guess it's the same stuff if the code is there with no = modification. If we >> could have this port checked in to the ports/ repository, this would = be >> great. Basically I'd concentrate on delivering good end-user = experience >>=20 >> Thanks for working on it. Lots of people will apprecite it. >>=20 > Ok so let's wait for more testers then? I=92ll give it a spin the next days. Since I last talked to some of you I had a lot of findings yet I had not = been able to make any possible solution to fully work yet. The in-tree = which supposedly should compile with a Ubuntu was unfortunately ruled = out the earliest:( Some had glibc dependencies I kicked out which the = F10 (our current default) environment didn=92t provide, others are just = not doing the right thing in some cases and required hacking. In the = end I stayed with Wojciech=92s version as it was the best option to = start with and I could make the most progress quickly. /bz =97=20 Bjoern A. Zeeb ????????? ??? ??????? ??????: '??? ??? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ?? ??????? ??????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ????', ????????? ?????????, "??? ????? ?? ?????", ?.???
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6A6EDDBE-509E-45F2-961D-3EC3788CAD9C>