Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 12:50:05 -0800 (PST) From: John Reynolds <jjreynold@home.com> To: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ports/24703: New port of 'libusb' to commit to the 'devel' category Message-ID: <200102112050.f1BKo5l43085@freefall.freebsd.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The following reply was made to PR ports/24703; it has been noted by GNATS. From: John Reynolds <jjreynold@home.com> To: Mikhail Teterin <mi@aldan.algebra.com> Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org, ports@FreeBSD.org, usb-bsd@eleetbsd.org Subject: Re: ports/24703: New port of 'libusb' to commit to the 'devel' category Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:45:37 -0700 [ On Sunday, February 11, Mikhail Teterin wrote: ] > As a happy user of this port-candidate with my PowerShot S100, > and a fresh committer, I'd commit this port, but I'm not sure > about the name of the installed library -- libusb. It is too > easily confused with our own libusb. Forget the -L/usr/local/lib > in front of -lusb and instead of "not found" you get totally wierd > errors :) > > Do others view this as a problem? How can it be renamed? > > -mi Thanks for your interest in commiting this port! I understand the naming difficulties. For ports or other applications that use libusb in its current format they would need to utilize the "libusb-config" script in order to use the correct flags to build. I realize there is definitely "trouble brewing" with two libraries named the same thing. This has come up on the usb-bsd mailing list in the last week or two. Johannes E., creator of libusb, would rather not change the name of the library. Somebody had asked whether or not the BSDs should change their libusb to something along the lines of libhid or libusbhid (since it only deals with HID) and the NetBSD USB stack author (Lennart Augustsson) said this was something that probably should be done (see http://lists.inteltec.com/wws/arc/usb-bsd/2001-02/msg00007.html). However, there have been no details as to when such a rename might take place. Nick Hibma has been out on holiday so we've not gotten his opinion or possible time table as to when a rename might take place (i.e. RELENG_4 or -current only, etc.). My opinion is to commit the port and let people start using the library. If gphoto and/or gphoto2 ports can be configured to use the libusb-config script to get the right arguments, things "should be ok" (notice the quotes). This will leave a naming conflict open now, but meantime we can discuss how and when to rename BSD's libusb to something else[1]. -Jr [1] There are lots of options here, up to and including merging the two libraries into one and putting it into the tree by default. None of this has been sorted out and not be a committer [or somebody who knows a heck of a lot about USB :)] I'll have to stand by the trenches and watch the discussion. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= John Reynolds Chandler Capabilities Engineering, CDS, Intel Corporation jreynold@sedona.ch.intel.com My opinions are mine, not Intel's. Running jjreynold@home.com FreeBSD 4.2-STABLE. FreeBSD: The Power to Serve. http://www.reynoldsnet.org/ Come join us!!! @ http://www.FreeBSD.org/ =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200102112050.f1BKo5l43085>