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 4bWmY04PNJz2ykg for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2025 15:05:08 +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 4bWmXx0YQwz2xWZ for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2025 15:05:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mail01.ipfire.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4bWmXp4PBJz1RF; Tue, 1 Jul 2025 15:04:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipfire.org; s=202003ed25519; t=1751382299; 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=Nqz86Z5NIxbtyCPVdnkoJd86G6w5yuSF1q9ij3e5fnE=; b=Bxqd0ZC/aKQvn9qorcYP62QMjhH/BmWqn1OA5jMl2J3xSzjjSDwRC9O+e0lm418fKvq5RN HaGOhzNhCAc4/BDQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipfire.org; s=202003rsa; t=1751382299; 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=Nqz86Z5NIxbtyCPVdnkoJd86G6w5yuSF1q9ij3e5fnE=; b=C0cnsqaq4+0ZrSlZ1P4/rt4m5owdDp53stLuHZ3yO8csp4VcFMMwikovzLrJWKbMCWbD52 9jGgEw2F2MVUidCxrmtT5YHivKnP9hhxkPeiUEcDizuhvOs7wMnq1UJxTp2nnOrEHFW0zX Mr7Ck1HN8BOQ0W29j48LfBW5Ovk7n6GScABXEgbdjLqn4p+Z2VhDfo8lzMr5gnFjdswPL2 kRMKB7RcDvx/8fqG4vCt1uStDTHuq66F8HPVg7+IuXKsHeGjnShm8/84BbMNV4t9pWbb4Z nolrApav9wLsG1jzmBJz3hoTuyX0tdytFYWnoUuGpV6H21VGQ2Z2akilqYbrUg== Message-ID: <9195aa57-73a3-4d44-a53f-00effd02d559@ipfire.org> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2025 17:04:55 +0200 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: Adolf Belka To: Michael Tremer Cc: "IPFire: Development-List" References: <20250630161202.3330224-1-adolf.belka@ipfire.org> <27B2901F-737B-4D2B-B976-D6403754D102@ipfire.org> <9e1da636-33bf-4da2-ac1f-303ba4fbd464@ipfire.org> Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: <9e1da636-33bf-4da2-ac1f-303ba4fbd464@ipfire.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 wrote: >>> >>> - libusb is a run time requirement for nut >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Adolf Belka >>> --- >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> >