From owner-freebsd-usb@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Feb 9 14:33:18 2014 Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-usb@FreeBSD.ORG> Delivered-To: freebsd-usb@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 26E5F3DA; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 14:33:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.kn-bremen.de (gelbbaer.kn-bremen.de [78.46.108.116]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF93C1A10; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 14:33:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kn-bremen.de (Postfix, from userid 10) id E07581E007B9; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 15:33:09 +0100 (CET) Received: from enceladus10.kn-bremen.de (noident@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by enceladus10.kn-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s19Dx6JG013175; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 14:59:06 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from nox@enceladus10.kn-bremen.de) Received: (from nox@localhost) by enceladus10.kn-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id s19Dx6m4013174; Sun, 9 Feb 2014 14:59:06 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from nox) From: Juergen Lock <nox@jelal.kn-bremen.de> Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 14:59:06 +0100 To: "Wojciech A. Koszek" <wkoszek@FreeBSD.org> Subject: CFT: Re: linux libusb again, I made an updated port... Message-ID: <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140209025624.GE12994@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: bapt@FreeBSD.org, hselasky@FreeBSD.org, Juergen Lock <nox@jelal.kn-bremen.de>, freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org, bz@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-usb@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-usb@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD support for USB <freebsd-usb.freebsd.org> List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-usb>, <mailto:freebsd-usb-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-usb/> List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-usb@freebsd.org> List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-usb-request@freebsd.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-usb>, <mailto:freebsd-usb-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Feb 2014 14:33:18 -0000 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! > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Should this be committed? Is wkoszek's version better since it > > > > also builds on < 10.x? Comments welcome... > > > > > > > > wkoszek's version: > > > > > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=146895 > > > > > > > > Mine: > > > > > > > > http://people.freebsd.org/~nox/tmp/linux_libusb.shar > > > > > > > > Distfile: > > > > > > > > http://people.freebsd.org/~nox/tmp/distfiles/linux_libusb-11.0r261448.tar.bz2 > > > > > > > > 10/amd64 package: > > > > > > > > http://people.freebsd.org/~nox/tmp/packages/10amd64/linux_libusb-11.0r261448.txz > > > > > > > > (built via: > > > > > > > > poudriere bulk -v -j 10amd64 -p custom devel/linux_libusb > > > > > > > > - 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...) > > > > > > > > > > Juergen, > > Hi! > > > > > > What would be the reason for this update? > > > > > > 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. > > > > > I was just thinking an updated version may be useful, but if it's > > already working for everyone maybe less so... > > > > 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.) > > > > Juergen, > > 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. > You mean bz@ ? Cc'd. I tried testing lsusb from debian sid but it printed nothing, neither with my nor with your older version, but maybe it's just `too new' for our current linuxolator. > > > Can you show the diff between USB code from src/lib and from the distfile? > > > > > That's just a checkout from head, see the port Makefile for how it's > > generated. (.if defined(BOOTSTRAP)...) > > > > > 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: > > > > > > cp -rf src/lib/libusb port/tmp/dir > > > > > > and build it with different -DDEFINES if necessary. > > > > > 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.) > > 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 > > Thanks for working on it. Lots of people will apprecite it. > Ok so let's wait for more testers then? Juergen