[Libusbx-devel] Linux patches for 1.0.9 release

[Xiaofan Chen]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Pete Batard <pete at akeo.ie> wrote:
> On 2012.03.27 14:18, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>> I do not like the name either. The original name lsusb also
>> sucks since it conflicts with usbutils package's lsusb which is
>> widely used under Linux.
>
> Yeah, personally I'd have gone with lusb. Googling for it doesn't show a
> risk of conflict (apart from people mispelling lsusb) and as previously
> stated, I'm not sure we should worry about prefixing samples over
> conflict matters. And if someone objects that lusb is not descriptive
> enough, then we'll probably want to change xusb and dpfp as well.
>
> But anyway, that's just a matter of personal preferences and not really
> something I want to blow out of proportions. Unless there's more than a
> couple people who'd like a name change, listdevs will do fine.

No problem.

>> I think the current listdevs example is a bit too weak, weaker than
>> libusb-0.1's testlibusb example anyway.
>> http://git.libusb.org/?p=libusb-compat-0.1.git;a=blob;f=examples/testlibusb.c;hb=HEAD;js=1
>
> I agree with that. Simple samples are fine, but at the end of the day,
> they don't demonstrate much more than what what somebody could have
> figured out from reading the docs. All listdevs does, that is USB
> specific really, is call on libusb_get_device_list() and that's it.
>
>> Can we just remove it and then create a libusb-1.0 version
>> of testlibusb?
>
> As long as it's "replace" rather than "remove", I don't really have any
> objection. I'd prefer not ending up with libusbx having one less sample
> for a time, regardless of how short.

Yes I mean "replace". I am also okay with keeping the simple one
and add the new testlibusb like example.

I'd like to see more examples distributed to the library user.
Travis has done a good job for libusbK. Maybe similar examples
can be done with libusbx.
  http://sourceforge.net/p/libusbk/code/216/tree/trunk/libusbK/examples/
  http://libusbk.sourceforge.net/UsbK3/examples.html

> And since we now have trac installed, with a nice roadmap [1], I have
> added this to the v1.0.10 planned tasklist.
> [1] https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/libusbx/roadmap
>
> With regards to the roadmap, needless to say, it currently reflects only
> my own personal outlook, is most likely missing much, and is  provided
> as a first instance of where I'd see us heading, in order to invite
> comments. As all roadmaps, things can and will get
> amended/replaced/shifted as we move along.

One thing I'd like to add is libusb0.sys and libusbk.sys integration.
Ideally it could be after 1.0.11 but before 2.0. Maybe the target
date will be like 5 months: 1-Sept-2012. But that is again depending
on the approach to take.

If we use Graeme's approach (directly talking to libusb0.sys) then the
duration may need to be longer. The advantage is that there is no
dependency on libusbk.dll. If we use libusbk.dll then the duration could
be shorter. I am more inclined to use Graeme's approach since
less dependency is a good thing.

For 1.0.11, there is a big thing which may need to be delayed
depending on Mac OS X resources -- Mac OS X HID backend.
On the other hand, some HIDAPI codes may be used as a
reference.


-- 
Xiaofan