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 4bWct618nmz2y3W for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2025 09:19:26 +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 4bWct24VPLz2xP7 for ; Tue, 1 Jul 2025 09:19:22 +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 4bWct15lBNzGF; Tue, 1 Jul 2025 09:19:21 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipfire.org; s=202003ed25519; t=1751361561; 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=cFKBM+GPE+EuDiyV+9nyy8p1cf3D1rgx9yHsM1lN+X4=; b=ZMwYu97sqzBEj8XwuCXM/jabY6aViVbl/HA0mtex96qfcwfkRp4/o0cl6xJ0Z85htuVcv/ HfrBMNAquczsIsCA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ipfire.org; s=202003rsa; t=1751361561; 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=cFKBM+GPE+EuDiyV+9nyy8p1cf3D1rgx9yHsM1lN+X4=; b=wn35nBYSAwFSr6KnGbzcIwaH5bsHyTnMlIWKOTkv0Zmqi1dF9a3eJ9fGkUy4u9nw+2vsBr BBi5XD5rEBARwwpcutHrpqrUdHutQfdhD9tyBq6RKW6zai7u/3N4bMq4hereqNV/0GsUp6 1kQlRJAmGsCZZmffSS9cHozRXyjnQ5naXRaObeGpKavTQvUrxWhNem0Klhdj/JeRU34Ykl tcNqAskFe7hUNigMduIUNpY/DYAnh5ougiQOXv2A2aftjHJa/Ty+GM8EKm5hzYZr5cb5dB ZnMC3hNa/WoPTwE6dsmsF2j2nQx8TxlYk284AJQIuGIvHx/7xmZslDraPRs0wQ== Message-ID: <9e1da636-33bf-4da2-ac1f-303ba4fbd464@ipfire.org> Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2025 11:19:17 +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 To: Michael Tremer References: <20250630161202.3330224-1-adolf.belka@ipfire.org> <27B2901F-737B-4D2B-B976-D6403754D102@ipfire.org> Content-Language: en-GB Cc: "IPFire: Development-List" From: Adolf Belka In-Reply-To: <27B2901F-737B-4D2B-B976-D6403754D102@ipfire.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 >> >> > >