On 4/21/12 19:36, "Peter Stuge" wrote:
>On Windows and Mac OS X I agree with you and Orin, because there are
>few (no?) useful system-wide package managers. On Linux and BSD there
>is generally a reliable package manager which handles dependencies,
>thus avoiding the problem. I of course understan
Kustaa Nyholm wrote:
> I can only speak for myself but I do not see it likely
> that libusbx 1.x (or libusb for that matter) will go out
> of its way to break neither the ABI or API in the future.
This is true at least for libusb.
> (As a side note and mostly commercial software developer
> actu
On 4/21/12 08:58, "Jose Pablo" wrote:
>I understand that NOW its not a problem. But in a future may be a
>problem. So, why don' t change the names NOW and prevent future problems?
At the moment the priority is to the project of the ground
and get as many people as possible onboard. The purpose
o
I understand that NOW its not a problem. But in a future may be a problem.
So, why don' t change the names NOW and prevent future problems?
Is an engineering issue, anticipate a future problem and prevent it.
Before the problem blow up in front of you. If it not, it's gonna crash on
an iceberg as
On 4/21/12 07:36, "Jose Pablo" wrote:
>
>Its like you guys are forcing me to take a side.
In a way yes.
>
>Where is my freedom to choose if you are forcing me to choose?.
Some freedoms are inherently in conflict with other freedoms.
>Thats not good for an free and open source software.
Thats
On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 8:21 PM, Jose Pablo wrote:
> What If I use a software which uses libusb-1.0 and then I decide to
> install another software which use libusbx-1.0? Do I have to uninstall the
> first one to uses the second one? Just because you people can´t decide not
> to change the names?!
I read it before.
Look at this:
*>*> It could even be considered a topic branch of libusb.git.
>Again wrong. Libusbx is completely disjoint from libusb. If you want to
>consider libusbx as a topic branch of libusb.git, then libusb is also a
>topic branch of libusbx.git.
>Libusbx is no more a bran
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> No problem, you have the right to express your feeling.
>
> On the other hand, if you understand the reason of the fork, then
> probably you would understand the decision.
Please also read Pete's comments here.
http://libusb.6.n5.nabble.com/
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Jose Pablo wrote:
> What If I use a software which uses libusb-1.0 and then I decide to install
> another software which use libusbx-1.0? Do I have to uninstall the first one
> to uses the second one? Just because you people can´t decide not to change
> the names?
What If I use a software which uses libusb-1.0 and then I decide to install
another software which use libusbx-1.0? Do I have to uninstall the first
one to uses the second one? Just because you people can´t decide not to
change the names?!
I see a ego problem here.
As a user I reclaim for MY RIGH
On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Jose Pablo wrote:
> Hi everybody
>
> Can you change the name of this files?
>
> From: To:
> libusb.h libusbx.h
> libusb-1.0.a libusbx-1.0.a
> libusb-1.0.la libusbx-1.0.la
> libusb-1.0.so
Hi everybody
Can you change the name of this files?
From: To:
libusb.h libusbx.h
libusb-1.0.a libusbx-1.0.a
libusb-1.0.lalibusbx-1.0.la
libusb-1.0.so libusbx-1.0.so
libusb-1.0.so.0libusbx-1.0.
12 matches
Mail list logo
