Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:30:04 +0100
From:      Pav Lucistnik <pav@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Andrew Thompson <thompsa@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru>, Bruce Cran <bruce@cran.org.uk>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: libusb and fast current changes
Message-ID:  <49BA51CC.3010402@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090312231814.GA79022@citylink.fud.org.nz>
References:  <11273764@bb.ipt.ru> <20090312133915.548350e4@gluon> <68384190@bb.ipt.ru> <20090312143911.653c3f72@gluon> <02302840@bb.ipt.ru> <20090312231814.GA79022@citylink.fud.org.nz>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Andrew Thompson wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 05:51:51PM +0300, Boris Samorodov wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:39:11 +0000 Bruce Cran wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:29:21 +0300
>>> Boris Samorodov <bsam@ipt.ru> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:39:15 +0000 Bruce Cran wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Lots of changes were made a couple of days ago to the
>>>>> installation of libusb[20]: libusb20 is now installed as libusb, and
>>>>> libusb20_compat01.h was renamed to usb.h to be compatible with
>>>>> libusb-0.1.  So for example any patches which change <usb.h> to
>>>>> <libusb20_compat01.h> can be removed.
>>>> Wow! Bruce, that was a nice shot. You definitely undertand what's
>>>> going on here. Thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Pav, can you test the attached patch? It work for the latest
>>>> i386/amd64 CURRENT for me.
>>> You may find you're repeating work that's already been done:
>>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/graphics/libgphoto2/ shows
>>> libgphoto2 was updated a few days ago to fix the build problems
>>> introduced with the renaming. 
>> It's the last version that doesn't work here. Please, take a look at
>> the patch at my previous email and you'll understand that I
>> implemented just what you said: "any patches which change <usb.h> to
>> <libusb20_compat01.h> can be removed". ;-)
>>
>> I think that an extra-patch for OSVERSION>800069 was introduced by an
>> accident.
> 
> Yes, it should be removed.

Removed, then.

Pav



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?49BA51CC.3010402>