[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: libusb and testing?



On Mon, Apr 15, 2002 at 10:16:32AM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Ben Burton <benb@acm.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > Hi.. out of curiosity, does anyone know what's keeping the new libusb out of 
> > testing?  I can't find anything useful in update_excuses.html and I can't 
> > make sense of the lines in update_output.txt.
> 
> The (obvious) problems were :
> - sane-backends/sane-frontends RC bugs
> - gphoto2 not building on arm
> - kdegraphics not building on arm
> 
> The hidden problems were :
> - pencam depending on libusb0 on m68k and sparc (bad build-deps)
> - libgpio depending on libusb0 on sparc (bad build-deps)

I don't know if the new packages of pencam and libgpio have been uploaded
but I would guess that it is not the case.
And I would guess that the libusb story is not yet over.

It is currently not possible to compile a working gphoto2 in unstable
without previously recompiling libusb.
Otherwise it segfault early because usb_busses (from libusb.so) is not
understood by gphoto2.
I believe it is a mismatch between libusb and gphoto2 libc or the gcc
used.
As I understand it ALL libusb-depend packages are concerned.

If I am correct we need a recompiled libusb and to recompile all related
packages.

Sorry for the bad news,
Christophe

> 
> [...]
> 
> > Just wondering what remains to be done to let libusb 1:0.1.5-3 in.
> 
> Nothing. Just wait. Binary NMUs for pencam and libgpio are in
> incoming, dinstall will pick them up in a couple of hours.
> 
> After this, we should be done with this problem.
> 
> JB.
> 
> 
> -- 
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
> 

-- 
Christophe Barbé <christophe.barbe@ufies.org>
GnuPG FingerPrint: E0F6 FADF 2A5C F072 6AF8  F67A 8F45 2F1E D72C B41E

A qui sait comprendre, peu de mots suffisent.
(Intelligenti pauca.) 

Attachment: pgpAZrff3eCLW.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: