Re: [PATCH] introduction of virtual/libusb0

[Philip Balister <philip@balister.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1411 bytes --]

Stanislav Brabec wrote:
> Koen Kooi wrote:
> 
>>> libusb-compat and libusb provide exactly the same API and ABI using a
>>> different back-end, and applications should work with both of them
>>> without recompilation.
>> Why not statically link in the old libusb0 to those broken apps? We do 
>> that for gnuradio (in a hacky way, but it can be made generic) and it 
>> works well.
> 
> Reverting to libusb-0 (even statically linked) is a quick
> fix. Debugging of libusb-compat, fixing it and sending patch upstream
> is a correct way.
> 
> Up to now it worked in all cases except gnuradio, which uses internal
> functions of libusb-0. All other applications should work with
> libusb-compat and no static linking should be needed.
> 
> Maybe few years from now on we can drop libusb-0 recipes completely (and
> keep gnuradio with statically linked old library maybe forever)
> altogether with the virtual. Now it is useful for quick fixing and for
> debugging of problems of libusb-compat.

I would love to see gnuradio use libusb1 or something. Until mainstream 
distros go libusb1 + libusb-compat, there is not much motivation to 
resolve the issue in gnuradio. I have looked at the code, and going to 
statically linked route was the least time consuming solution.

Basically, I want to do actual interesting work, and not hack arounf at 
the usb layer :)

Phiip


[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 3303 bytes --]