On 2013-01-15 17:48, Thomas Jarosch wrote:
On Sunday, 13. January 2013 16:29:24 Anders Larsen wrote:
> IMHO it would be better to not include <libusb.h> at all when
compiling
> your application (unless the application needs it directly).
Yes, this idea sounds good. Applied.
thanks!
One question about the patch:
You also removed the explicit linking of libusb from the pkconfig
file.
Since libusb 1.0 supports pkgconfig and we have it in
the "Requires:" section, that should be fine.
Exactly, that's why I removed it.
(We actually don't even need the "Requires:" since libftdi.so is
explicitly linked against libusb-1.0, so it's not necessary to specify
libusb-1.0 again when linking an application, at least not on Linux)
I just wanted to explicitly mention it on the mailinglist,
in case someone thinks it's a bad idea for whatever reason :)
You're right, of course - I should have mentioned it explicitly.
Cheers
Anders
--
libftdi - see http://www.intra2net.com/en/developer/libftdi for details.
To unsubscribe send a mail to libftdi+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| 