From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:52673) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UY9Bm-0000Qd-6n for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 May 2013 02:09:51 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UY9Bl-0005KZ-AN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 May 2013 02:09:50 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:34413) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UY9Bl-0005KT-3F for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 03 May 2013 02:09:49 -0400 Message-ID: <518354A7.6000800@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 08:09:43 +0200 From: Gerd Hoffmann MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/4] usb-host: raise libusbx minimum version to 1.0.13 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Ed Maste Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Hi, > I'm wondering how best to address QEMU's libusb support on FreeBSD, > and discovered the libusb vs. libusbx saga. Is it safe to assume that > in the Linux world "pkg-config libusb-1.0" is generally going to refer > to libusbx? In recent linux distributions yes. > FreeBSD has its own libusb-compatible implementation, but currently > lacks libusb_get_port_path and perhaps others, and if libusbx is > virtually universal on Linux we presumably want to grow these same > interfaces. Yes. Even better would be to get the freebsd support merged into libusbx. /me suspects the reason why freebsd has its own implementation is basically the same why the libusbx exists in the first place: unfriendly libusb upstream. So if you tried + failed to merge the freebsd bits to libusb in the past it is worth trying again to get them into libusbx, then switch over freebsd to libusbx too. cheers, Gerd