On Sun, 2007-05-27 at 16:20 +0200, bert hubert wrote: > > the separate class device. How does that help text sound? > > > > This option provides backward compatibility for systems where > > usbfs is not mounted, and no udev rule like this exists: > > SUBSYSTEM=="usb", ACTION=="add", ENV{DEVTYPE}=="usb_device", \ > > NAME="bus/usb/$env{BUSNUM}/$env{DEVNUM}", MODE="0644" > > I'm mounting my Linus hat now, but the more I think about the > insta-deprecation of USB_DEVICE_CLASS, and killing lsusb in even a very > recent distribution release, I think this is an ABI or API change. > > And we hate those.
There is no breakage at all. Nothing has changed regarding ABI/API. It's just a feature that is configurable now, that was always built-in in older kernels. That's all, and correctly configured kernels don't break anything. > So instead of papering this breakage over with cleverly worded help texts > that suggest a solution, how about we set USB_DEVICE_CLASS to 'y' by default > for a few more releases? Makes sense, yes. > It would sure save a lot of lkml traffic on 'lsusb broke!'. > > If this is unacceptable, please at least retain the word 'lsusb' somewhere > in the help text, so people have at least the chance to spot their (current) > need for USB_DEVICE_CLASS. > > Perhaps: > > "Some distributions need this feature for lsusb to work, unless the udev rule > above is configured". It's libusb access in general and not specific to lsusb. Kay - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/