On 2013.03.13 07:07, Richard Hughes wrote:
>>From my (perhaps naive) point of view, it seems much more priority is
> being given to edge features like WinCE support, rather than core
> issues with the library.
Glad you make that point, as it'll give me an opportunity to explain a
few things.
Fir
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> I think the main issue is that he can't actually make his driver code
> work correctly without things like libusb_handle_events_check (which
> makes sense to me) and also libusb_resetep (which also makes sense for
> me on Linux).
I am not s
On 12 March 2013 22:42, Pete Batard wrote:
> I guess I'll bite, and fill you in on a few details, to try to offer a
> different perspective from what you seem to _perceive_.
Sure, it was meant somewhat tongue-in-cheek, so I appreciate the
response. I'm not deliberately trolling.
> Ergo, the time
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:52 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
>> As per his post to libusb-win32 mailing list, he will
>> probably drop libusb-1.0A support and use his own
>> USB implementation in the future
>
> Shouldn't this trigger some kind of alarm in the libusbx project? I
> mean, if users like Gr
Hi Richard,
I guess I'll bite, and fill you in on a few details, to try to offer a
different perspective from what you seem to _perceive_.
The first thing you need to realize is that we're not Apple or Microsoft
here, or can rely on people people living off of a retirement fund ,with
the luxur
On 12 March 2013 14:05, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>> * libusb_resetep
> Not implemented yet.
> Ref: https://github.com/libusbx/libusbx/issues/18
Seems no-one is interested. :(
>> * libusb_handle_events_check
> This is probably an extension by Graeme.
Seems to be discussed in http://www.libusb.org/tic
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> As per the changelog, libusb support has been dropped since
> 1.5.0, so even if the libusb-1.0A codes are still there, I am not so sure
> whether they are supported by the upstream author (Graeme) or not.
Ref: http://www.argyllcms.com/doc/Ch
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> As per his post to libusb-win32 mailing list, he will
> probably drop libusb-1.0A support and use his own
> USB implementation in the future. So I am not so sure
> if your efforts will pay off that much. You could just
> use his libusb-1.0A i
On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> I'm trying to build Argyllcms 1.5.1 for Fedora using the libusbx code
> rather than the internal USB implementation. Using the system
> libraries rather than bundled libraries is best practice for most
> distros, so I'm trying this way first
Hi all,
I'm trying to build Argyllcms 1.5.1 for Fedora using the libusbx code
rather than the internal USB implementation. Using the system
libraries rather than bundled libraries is best practice for most
distros, so I'm trying this way first.
ArgyllCMS seems to require the following functions,
10 matches
Mail list logo
