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
