On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 1. Rename the library and header file. (not yet)
> i dont understand why this is necessary. why is having libftdi-1.x require
> libusb-1.x isnt a big deal for distros ? we have those packages in Gentoo
> right now. for packages that still use libusb-0.x API, there is always the
> compat library.
> if the ABI doesnt break, it's actually more of a pain to integrate different
> SONAMEs into binary distros. a simple upgrade from libftdi-0.x to libftdi-1.x
> where one just replaces the other completely is a lot easier, and if it
> requires a new libusb, then that isnt a problem either.
> if there is truly a desire to keep support for older distros which dont
> support libusb-1.x yet, then adding an internal compat layer isnt hard. i did
> this for urjtag already. so now the whole source uses libusb-1.x but if
> people are building against libusb-0.x, there is a local header to turn the
> 0.x API into the 1.x API.
I think the API is already a bit different. For one thing, please refer to this
- void ftdi_set_usbdev (struct ftdi_context *ftdi, usb_dev_handle *usbdev);
+ void ftdi_set_usbdev (struct ftdi_context *ftdi, struct
Maybe you have a better solution for this one?
libftdi - see http://www.intra2net.com/en/developer/libftdi for details.
To unsubscribe send a mail to libftdi+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx