Bug#810436: libindi: please switch to libusb 1.0

2016-02-06 Thread Diederik de Haas 
On Fri, 5 Feb 2016 12:23:27 +0100 Maximiliano Curia  
wrote:
> Version: 0.9.8-4
> 
> On 08/01/16 19:37, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > Package: libindi
> > Version: 0.9.7-1
> > Severity: wishlist
> >
> > libindi 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.
> This was changed some time ago, the 0.9.8.1-4  version was uploaded in
> 2014-07-18, is there any remaining part of libindi 0.9.7 hidden somewhere?

Maybe the 'issue' is that libindi is the source package name?
Another explanation could be that there is a version 0.9.7-1 for libindi0b and 
libindi-dev on hurd-i386.

HTH,
  Diederik

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#810436: libindi: please switch to libusb 1.0

2016-02-06 Thread Scott Kitterman 


On February 6, 2016 2:31:02 PM EST, Diederik de Haas  
wrote:
>On Fri, 5 Feb 2016 12:23:27 +0100 Maximiliano Curia
> 
>wrote:
>> Version: 0.9.8-4
>> 
>> On 08/01/16 19:37, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> > Package: libindi
>> > Version: 0.9.7-1
>> > Severity: wishlist
>> >
>> > libindi 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.
>> This was changed some time ago, the 0.9.8.1-4  version was uploaded
>in
>> 2014-07-18, is there any remaining part of libindi 0.9.7 hidden
>somewhere?
>
>Maybe the 'issue' is that libindi is the source package name?
>Another explanation could be that there is a version 0.9.7-1 for
>libindi0b and 
>libindi-dev on hurd-i386.

That would do it.  You might want to file a architecture specific RM bug to 
clear it up.

Scott K

Bug#810436: libindi: please switch to libusb 1.0

2016-02-06 Thread Diederik de Haas 
On Saturday 06 February 2016 14:35:56 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >Maybe the 'issue' is that libindi is the source package name?
> >Another explanation could be that there is a version 0.9.7-1 for
> >libindi0b and libindi-dev on hurd-i386.
> 
> That would do it.  You might want to file a architecture specific RM bug to
> clear it up.

I don't even have a remote clue how to go about that and against which 
package, so I'll leave that up to others who do understand that.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Bug#810436: libindi: please switch to libusb 1.0

2016-02-06 Thread Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer 
On Saturday 06 February 2016 21:03:05 Diederik de Haas wrote:
> On Saturday 06 February 2016 14:35:56 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > >Maybe the 'issue' is that libindi is the source package name?
> > >Another explanation could be that there is a version 0.9.7-1 for
> > >libindi0b and libindi-dev on hurd-i386.
> > 
> > That would do it.  You might want to file a architecture specific RM bug
> > to
> > clear it up.
> 
> I don't even have a remote clue how to go about that and against which
> package, so I'll leave that up to others who do understand that.

Take a look at  and then use 
reportbug against ftp.debian.org, as version 0.9.7-1 is in unstable as 
rmadison outputs:

$ rmadison libindi
libindi| 0.9.1-2   | oldstable   | source
libindi| 0.9.7-1   | unstable| source
libindi| 0.9.8.1-5.1   | stable  | source
libindi| 0.9.8.1-5.1   | stable-kfreebsd | source
libindi| 1.0.0-4   | unstable| source
libindi| 1.1.0-1   | testing | source
libindi| 1.1.0-1   | unstable| source

Feel free to send me a copy of the bug so I can track it (reportbug will ask 
you if you want to send copies).

Happy hacking!

-- 
I am two fools, I know, for loving, and for saying so.
  John Donne

Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer
http://perezmeyer.com.ar/
http://perezmeyer.blogspot.com/


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.