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 D
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
> >
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.
>
>
On Tuesday 15 March 2016 23:08:26 Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On 2016-03-15 22:50, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Tuesday 15 March 2016 22:47:23 Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > On 2016-03-15 22:25, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday 15 March 2016 22:12:18 Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > > > > Aurelien, I would sug
On 2016-03-15 22:50, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 March 2016 22:47:23 Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > On 2016-03-15 22:25, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 15 March 2016 22:12:18 Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > > > Aurelien, I would suggest to have libusb-dev (libusb 0.1)
> > > > > package in Debian r
On Tuesday 15 March 2016 22:47:23 Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On 2016-03-15 22:25, Pali Rohár wrote:
> > On Tuesday 15 March 2016 22:12:18 Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > > > Aurelien, I would suggest to have libusb-dev (libusb 0.1)
> > > > package in Debian repository, because it is stable and is
> > > > wo
On 2016-03-15 22:25, Pali Rohár wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 March 2016 22:12:18 Aurelien Jarno 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.
>
On Tuesday 15 March 2016 22:12:18 Aurelien Jarno 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
On 2016-03-15 21:26, Pali Rohár wrote:
> Hi Aurelien!
Hi,
> Library libusb 1.0 is slow and unusable. Currently experimental port of
> 0x to libusb 1.0 (in git) is not fully functional due to slow
> listing/enumerating of connected usb devices.
>
> So using new libusb 1.0 is not possible to
Hi Aurelien!
Library libusb 1.0 is slow and unusable. Currently experimental port of
0x to libusb 1.0 (in git) is not fully functional due to slow
listing/enumerating of connected usb devices.
So using new libusb 1.0 is not possible to have working 0x
application right now. 0x with
Package: 0x
Version: 0.6.1-3
Severity: wishlist
Dear Maintainer,
0x 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
11 matches
Mail list logo