> Em 21-09-2013 13:27, Igor Živković escreveu:
>> On 09/21/2013 05:57 PM, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>> Sorry for hijacking your thread.
I was LOL, when I read. Then started thinking about the technical
questions, and forgot this. No problem, that is al right.
BTW, have you decided about the li
Em 21-09-2013 13:27, Igor Živković escreveu:
> On 09/21/2013 05:57 PM, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>>
>> About my previous post, libusb is listed as "Optional" in sdl, so, if it
>> cannot be found by sdl's configure, should it not be fixed?
>
> Sorry for hijacking your thread. I don't think SDL us
On 09/21/2013 05:57 PM, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>
> About my previous post, libusb is listed as "Optional" in sdl, so, if it
> cannot be found by sdl's configure, should it not be fixed?
Sorry for hijacking your thread. I don't think SDL uses that libusb but
libusbhid from BSD so it should pr
Em 21-09-2013 12:25, Igor Živković escreveu:
> On 09/21/2013 05:10 PM, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
>> FWIW, I am reporting this. I do not need libusb for what I intended to
>> install, so no idea how relevant this is.
>>
>> I noticed that configure could not find libusb.h. With
>>
>> sed -i 's@incl
On 09/21/2013 05:10 PM, Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
> FWIW, I am reporting this. I do not need libusb for what I intended to
> install, so no idea how relevant this is.
>
> I noticed that configure could not find libusb.h. With
>
> sed -i 's@include @include @g' configure
>
> it was found.
Speakin
FWIW, I am reporting this. I do not need libusb for what I intended to
install, so no idea how relevant this is.
I noticed that configure could not find libusb.h. With
sed -i 's@include @include @g' configure
it was found.
--
[]s,
Fernando
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-
