On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 4:31 AM, Hans de Goede <hdego...@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On 04/23/2012 07:31 PM, Garret Kelly wrote: >> Then we should begin actively discussing this issue with the people >> who it _is_ up to. Preferably who're going to be doing the distro >> packaging, because they're going to want to be a part of this. >> > > Short self intro: I'm a libusb developer *and* the Fedora package > maintainer of libusbx and one of the "forkers". One of the reasons > why libusbx-1.0.x is a drop in replacement and thus "steals" the > soname, is because I specifically asked it to do so! > > Why? Because I / Fedora needed a newer version of libusb for both > a lot of bugfixes and some new API calls (specifically the > get_speed function). > > IIRC we also had discussion with some of the Debian maintainers, > and they welcomes the idea of a drop in replacement fork too, since > they too wanted a proper release with all the accumulated bugfixes > in there.
Very good! > I've asked Peter about doing a release before the start of the Fedora > 16 cycle, and he said that I could count on a 1.0.9 in time for the > devel freeze for Fedora 16 beta. We're now past the beta release of > Fedora 16, so 9 months since I first asked for a release, and there > would still not have been a 1.0.9 if it were not for the libusbx fork. > > Yes after we announced the fork Peter finally managed to roll a > tarbal, but if we had not forked I'm 99.9% sure we would still not > have one! I agree. As recent as last months, I asked Peter about the 1.0.9 release, the answer to my question why the release of 1.0.9 still did not happen is that "Obviously because it's not ready yet". http://libusb.6.n5.nabble.com/libusb-1-0-9-release-td5581933.html And then once we announced the fork, suddenly Peter went into action and pushed many patches (some without discussions on the mailing list) and then released libusb-1.0.9. > Various people have been both begging Peter to do a release for more > then a year now, as well as asking him to step down as a maintainer > ... Some examples: http://libusb.6.n5.nabble.com/ETA-for-1-0-9-td3874739.html http://libusb.6.n5.nabble.com/libusb-1-0-9-td5044335.html > Note that at this point in time Peter can still avoid the pending > fragmentation of libusb by stepping down as a maintainer. The problem > is that Peter is operating libusb as a dictator, with for example only > him having commit rights to the master git branch, and he is doing > a very poor job at it! I think that Peter has done great jobs for quite some libusb.git codes and is a great contributor to the libusb-devel mailing list. However I agree with you that he has done a poor job as the sole active maintainer of libusb. That is the main reason for the fork. If libusb and libusbx merge again, that is good for the community, I think Peter can still be a maintainer, but not the sole maintainer. > Contrast this to libusbx where various people have commit rights, > rights to administrate the domain name, and are sf.net project admins. -- Xiaofan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Developers, A Lot Can Happen In A Second. Boundary is the first to Know...and Tell You. Monitor Your Applications in Ultra-Fine Resolution. Try it FREE! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-d2dvs2 _______________________________________________ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
