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. -- Pali Rohár pali.ro...@gmail.com
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
