On Wednesday 01 June 2016 23:25:56 Pali Rohár wrote: > On Thursday 28 April 2016 10:13:51 Pali Rohár wrote: > > On Tuesday 15 March 2016 22:12:18 Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > > On 2016-03-15 21:26, Pali Rohár wrote: > > > > Aurelien, I would suggest to have libusb-dev (libusb 0.1) > > > > package in Debian repository, because it is stable and is > > > > working, not like new libusb-1.0-0-dev which is slow and > > > > unusable. > > > > > > I disagree with this statement, libusb 1.0 is used in many > > > applications without any problem. Contrary to libusb 0.1, it is a > > > maintained library, so if you encountered any bug that makes it > > > slow, unusable or whatever, please report a bug and a testcase, I > > > am sure we'll find a solution. > > > > Looks like upstream ignores this problem and so there is no other > > way as using working libusb 0.1 library instead that new libusb > > 1.0 which does not work... > > Ok, upstream is definitely ignoring this problem... I got no response > about it for 3 months! > > I really suggest to stay on libusb 0.1 library which is *working* and > not forcing us to use non working slow and buggy version 1.0.
Bug for libusb 1.0 was reported at least two times. And after 8 months upstream libusb is totally ignoring it. It is without any (relevant) answer. So I'm reverting non-working libusb 1.0 support in my 0xFFFF project. 0xFFFF will use only libusb 0.1 library which is working -- and not libusb 1.0 anymore. Sorry, but I do not see any other option. As libusb 1.0 maintainers do not want to cooperate, I really suggest to do not remove *working* libusb 0.1 library as there is no replacement for it. -- Pali Rohár pali.ro...@gmail.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
