On 2016-01-09 01:05, Stefan Lippers-Hollmann wrote: > Hi > > On 2016-01-08, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > Package: lirc > > Version: 0.9.0~pre1-1.2 > > Severity: wishlist > > > > Dear Maintainer, > > > > lirc has a build-depends on libusb-dev. A few years ago upstream > > has released a new major version libusb 1.0 with a different API which > > aims to fix design deficiencies with USB 2.0 and 3.0 in mind. > > > > The old libusb 0.1 package is not supported upstream anymore and should > > be considered deprecated. > [...] > > [ this will be basically the same answer as for libftdi1, so feel free > to skip reading one ] > > What is the rough time frame you have in mind for removing libusb-0.1-4 > from unstable?
I currently don't have a time frame in mind for libusb 0.1. Ideally that should be done for stretch, but given the number of involved packages it might be only for buster. That's why have opened theses bugs with severity "wishlist". For libftdi, I hope we can do that before the stretch freeze. > I'm asking because there are two options: > > - pushing the current upstream version, with a transition, involving > around 30 rdepends, needing sourceful uploads for most of them, and > a rather complex device specific config migration, plus some pending > packaging work > > or > > - backporting (looks to be pretty reasonable) the necessary changes for > libusb 1.0 to lirc 0.9.0 (or 0.9.1, which 'only' needs the config > migration, but not the library transition and the corresponding > transition slot). > > Depending on your schedule, I can look into the targeted backports, > but naturally I'd prefer to avoid that (as long as lirc won't be > one of the final blockers). Don't rush anything for now. I'll send an update once there are less blockers involved. Regards, Aurelien -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 4096R/1DDD8C9B aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
