From: Adolf Belka <adolf.belka@ipfire.org>
To: Michael Tremer <michael.tremer@ipfire.org>
Cc: "IPFire: Development-List" <development@lists.ipfire.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libusb: Add comment to update nut when libusb is updated
Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2025 17:04:55 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9195aa57-73a3-4d44-a53f-00effd02d559@ipfire.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9e1da636-33bf-4da2-ac1f-303ba4fbd464@ipfire.org>
Hi Michael,
I saw that my libusb patch with the comment has been merged.
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.
Regards,
Adolf.
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,
>>
>> Could you tell us my about why this is necessary?
>>
>> The library should have a stable ABI so whenever they are being compiled independently from each other, they should still work.
>>
>> Best,
>> -Michael
>>
>>> On 30 Jun 2025, at 17:12, Adolf Belka <adolf.belka@ipfire.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> - libusb is a run time requirement for nut
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Adolf Belka <adolf.belka@ipfire.org>
>>> ---
>>> lfs/libusb | 1 +
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/lfs/libusb b/lfs/libusb
>>> index 4b12242d7..0ff89ff75 100644
>>> --- a/lfs/libusb
>>> +++ b/lfs/libusb
>>> @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@
>>> include Config
>>>
>>> VER = 1.0.29
>>> +# Ship nut when libusb is updated
>>>
>>> THISAPP = libusb-$(VER)
>>> DL_FILE = $(THISAPP).tar.bz2
>>> --
>>> 2.50.0
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-07-01 15:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-06-30 16:12 Adolf Belka
2025-07-01 7:52 ` Michael Tremer
2025-07-01 9:19 ` Adolf Belka
2025-07-01 15:04 ` Adolf Belka [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=9195aa57-73a3-4d44-a53f-00effd02d559@ipfire.org \
--to=adolf.belka@ipfire.org \
--cc=development@lists.ipfire.org \
--cc=michael.tremer@ipfire.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox