From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail02.haj.ipfire.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail02.haj.ipfire.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4bXGmS5NrRz2yxl for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2025 10:46:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail01.ipfire.org (mail01.haj.ipfire.org [172.28.1.202]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1) server-digest SHA384 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mail01.haj.ipfire.org", Issuer "R11" (verified OK)) by mail02.haj.ipfire.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4bXGmP1pY0z2y36 for ; Wed, 2 Jul 2025 10:46:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail01.ipfire.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4bXGmM6nHTztr; Wed, 2 Jul 2025 10:46:43 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipfire.org; s=202003ed25519; t=1751453204; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=XUGdCX70hBX/uGL+vlJ5LKpAzgSsYFh/h+MJ5EJCJcA=; b=SQFoCsKFQqokDlgrJREC74bR50plyqr4U8pxVabGqaFJ8NXVaF6Fkw/ApeLQL7g5fjCd2o /xTVPrrcl/PSHMCQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipfire.org; s=202003rsa; t=1751453204; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=XUGdCX70hBX/uGL+vlJ5LKpAzgSsYFh/h+MJ5EJCJcA=; b=U6LohW7547NMBs/3C+IHHH1MPS3JBXx6uNFcxZASwZ8l+o2IgdSEZZvYEPxrhJAVNtn7/I dISumE5d5UTrVXu726xlVc11yYWamJZl+zkkqbxQE6JO197yFrR1y0qef5FJSqSDoCiv2L +DhmsM8x7JLEKB3gurP1uSFncjMfmtyLpAG4Bxff11Oh5xbHTG8ALQ3/WdOd8v6XarDgwd ugYj9uQupz3JbLBwozXT18Abr5lWwWt4Va0f/19UMmSUZtdHZvf8zywb48Yx+KBy+Lafj6 3Rt8SR2XUgoST/QvbV+oAjOsHc9sgGxk1uY1oKWzgTdmQhiR1ksGeQVHah+icA== Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: Sender: Mail-Followup-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] libusb: Add comment to update nut when libusb is updated From: Michael Tremer In-Reply-To: <9195aa57-73a3-4d44-a53f-00effd02d559@ipfire.org> Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2025 11:46:41 +0100 Cc: "IPFire: Development-List" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <1E014F28-C1BF-4631-A072-630F9E86CE87@ipfire.org> References: <20250630161202.3330224-1-adolf.belka@ipfire.org> <27B2901F-737B-4D2B-B976-D6403754D102@ipfire.org> <9e1da636-33bf-4da2-ac1f-303ba4fbd464@ipfire.org> <9195aa57-73a3-4d44-a53f-00effd02d559@ipfire.org> To: Adolf Belka Thank you. I reverted the patch, but I did not push it yet, just because we don=E2=80= =99t need to trigger a build for such a small change. -Michael > On 1 Jul 2025, at 16:04, Adolf Belka wrote: >=20 > Hi Michael, >=20 > I saw that my libusb patch with the comment has been merged. >=20 > As I indicated below, I have realised that the problem I was looking = at for a user was due to a different issue so that libusb patch with the = addition of the comment can be rejected and reverted. >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Adolf. >=20 > On 01/07/2025 11:19, Adolf Belka wrote: >> Hi Michael, >> Earlier this year someone had a problem where nut wouldn't work = because it was not linked to the correct libusb library and libusb had = been updated in 2024. I thought that this had been a problem of a = failure in a library link after an update because nut had not been = shipped. >> Withy you asking the question I went back and looked at the failures = that had been reported and recognised a problem I had seen before with = nut. >> The problem, the user had was not due to a incorrectly linked library = but due to a regression in nut where they ended up making the library = requirement to libusb-1.0.so and not to libusb-1.0.so.0 or = libusb-1.0.so.0.4.0 >> This issue of linking to libusb-1.0.so had been fixed in nut-2.7.4 = but somewhere between there and nut-2.8.2 it came back. They have now = fixed this again in the latest version which is in CU196 (nut-2.8.3) >> So the message is not required in the lfs file and my patch can be = rejected. >> I obviously didn't read the details of the issue reported in the = forum closely enough and missed that it was the direct .so file being = required. >> Regards, >> Adolf. >> On 01/07/2025 09:52, Michael Tremer wrote: >>> Hello Adolf, >>>=20 >>> Could you tell us my about why this is necessary? >>>=20 >>> The library should have a stable ABI so whenever they are being = compiled independently from each other, they should still work. >>>=20 >>> Best, >>> -Michael >>>=20 >>>> On 30 Jun 2025, at 17:12, Adolf Belka = wrote: >>>>=20 >>>> - libusb is a run time requirement for nut >>>>=20 >>>> Signed-off-by: Adolf Belka >>>> --- >>>> lfs/libusb | 1 + >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >>>>=20 >>>> diff --git a/lfs/libusb b/lfs/libusb >>>> index 4b12242d7..0ff89ff75 100644 >>>> --- a/lfs/libusb >>>> +++ b/lfs/libusb >>>> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ >>>> include Config >>>>=20 >>>> VER =3D 1.0.29 >>>> +# Ship nut when libusb is updated >>>>=20 >>>> THISAPP =3D libusb-$(VER) >>>> DL_FILE =3D $(THISAPP).tar.bz2 >>>> --=20 >>>> 2.50.0 >>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >=20