Ok, I feel stupid because all the symptoms I have described about libfreenect were my mistake (I went too fast...). See later On 30/01/2012 13:49, Antonio Ospite wrote: > I'd say update libfreenect to the latest version, which as a matter of > fact is adopting solution 2, and live with the limitations of libusb. This is what I am already doing: packaging the latest version (2 weeks old). I recently integrated the maintainer group of libfreenect and I am preparing the version 0.1.2. > IMHO, generally, downstream should track more closely upstream releases You are right, and we intend to be closer in future (I have added a watch file for this). Now the problems I faced were my fault : I was packaging the version 0.1.2, but by mistake I tested the previous debian version (the one without the detach): I was so confident about the problem that I did not investigated more carefully. But this has taught me a lesson: verify twice (or even three times) before opening my mouth :-( (and before writing a debconf script for no reason) > and maybe communicate with upstream directly, this looks like a question > for openkinect@googlegroups.com Actually I wanted to know whether some similar situation had been encountered previously and how they were solved before discussing about it on openkinect. So now, there is nothing to discussed, everything is solved. However if somebody has faced a similar problem, I am still interested in knowing how it has been solved. > That said: thanks a lot for packaging libfreenect for Debian. The version 0.1.2 is almost ready. It should land in Debian in few days :-). Cheers, Nicolas
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature