| 1 |
On Wednesday 30 May 2012 17:41:18 Peter Stuge wrote: |
| 2 |
> Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > Fedora rawhide and ArchLinux switched to libusbx and followed |
| 4 |
> > > suit in our virtual/libusb:1. |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > sad that we can't get these things merged. maybe we need to |
| 7 |
> > convince dsd to hand over the reigns ? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> It seems that some don't know that dsd made me co-maintainer in |
| 10 |
> libusb some months after he created the 1.0.8 release. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I've been working hard on libusb since before 1.0.8. I joined libusb |
| 13 |
> in 2004 and was already asked by Johannes (the 0.1 author) to be |
| 14 |
> maintainer in 2007, but declined. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> The fork is a long story. I commented in the Arch ticket for their |
| 17 |
> switch, and the libusbx lead maintainer replied there today. I also |
| 18 |
> had a chat with Samuli and marienz@g.o on IRC about keeping libusb |
| 19 |
> as the default provider for virtual/libusb:1. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> I'm working on a blog post with what I think are some key facts for |
| 22 |
> everyone with an interest in the libusb API. The fork is, like the |
| 23 |
> libusb-1.0.9 release, a month old, and of course there was a sudden |
| 24 |
> surge in activity when Hans (Fedora libusb package maintainer and |
| 25 |
> now libusbx maintainer) blogged about the fork, which I wasn't quite |
| 26 |
> prepared for. Hold on, more information coming shortly. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
thanks! |
| 29 |
-mike |
Archives