From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [216.145.245.199] (helo=mx03.dls.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KdPjJ-00088c-Bo for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:27:33 +0200 Received: from [209.242.7.188] (helo=[192.168.231.111]) by mx03.dls.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1KdPgl-0000Se-Is for openembedded-devel@openembedded.org; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:24:55 -0500 Message-ID: <48C7CA95.2040708@dls.net> Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:24:37 -0500 From: "Mike (mwester)" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.16) Gecko/20080708 Thunderbird/2.0.0.16 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-devel@openembedded.org References: <48C72166.7030000@dls.net> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: libusb and libusb-compat: conflict X-BeenThere: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: openembedded-devel@lists.openembedded.org List-Id: Using the OpenEmbedded metadata to build Distributions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:27:33 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Koen Kooi wrote: ... > Some background: libusb1 is the rewrite of libusb which brings up > goodness as better performance and more powersaving, but its ABI is > incompatible with libusb. That is why the libusb people create > libusb-compat, it's a drop-in replacement for libusb. > > When I added it to OE I made sure the runtime situation worked and > changed all packages to libusb-compat. It seems I missed a few. Grep comes up with a bunch, but probably a lot of those are just older recipes -- dfu-util and openocd are definitely broken, though. > It should be safe to change everything over to libusb-compat, unless > your favourite apps abuses private libusb API (as gnuradio does). I encountered simple linker failures (symbols not found). I'll get rid of libusb out of staging entirely and see if dfu-util and openocd will link correctly against libusb-compat. I can test dfu-util, but I hope someone else can test openocd. > And there's no such thing as CONFLICTS in OE, only RCONFLICTS. Bummer. That would mean that we would need to switch to "virtual/libusb" I guess. That seems a lot of effort for something that's obsolete -- it might be better to warn people if libusb is being built instead of libusb-compat. I wonder if this might be a use case for a "WARNING" metadata item in a bitbake recipe. I will do nothing with any metadata then except attempt to build dfu-util and openocd with libusb-compat. > regards, > > Koen Mike (mwester)