On 2012.09.24 19:50, Greg KH wrote: > Please fix this in libusbx, or bump the .so name so that tools can > properly know that the API has changed, and that they want to build > against the old one.
Well, if you leave us no other alternative, then I guess my vote will be for option 2, especially as we have had issues with trying to keep the libusb and libusbx APIs in sync in the past and we are a fork. For the record, we will keep the LIBUSBX_API_VERSION macro in future versions (though we may decrease it in 1.0.14 if we do a revert), therefore the workaround we provide for bMaxPower and 1.0.13 will still work should you want to to apply it _temporarily_ to alleviate the 1.0.13 blowback you seem to be getting. Note that if we release 1.1, we will not be able to ensure compatibility with libusb, when/if libusb releases 1.1, as this will become a pure libusb matter then. Regards, /Pete ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
