From: Jasper W. <ja...@po...> - 2001-02-06 19:11:59
|
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Johannes Erdfelt wrote: > On Tue, Feb 06, 2001, Jasper Wallace <ja...@po...> wrote: > > The usb stack for the bsd's is the same, or very similar, they are all based > > on the netbsd one, it's a trivial mod to the configure script to make libusb > > compile on netbsd, but i don't have anything to test it with at the moment. I've got an LG SOUL: jasper@jellycat:~/develop/netbsd/usb/libusb/[0]> ./tests/testlibusb usb_find_busses: Found /dev/usb0 usb_find_devices_on_bus: Found /dev/ugen0.00 on /dev/usb0 bus/device idVendor/idProduct /dev/usb0//dev/ugen0.00 043E/7001 So it works that much under NetBSD. I'll try the ezload util with an Entrega 2U4S 4 port serial adaptor with 2 port usb hub as well. I'm about to ask an OpenBSD using friend of mine if i can try libusb on his box. > > I think it may be worthwhile to change freebsd.c to bsd.c to avoid > > confusion. > > Sounds like a reasonable change. > > > I can get access to Free & NetBSD machines, and should be able to get access > > to an OpenBSD machine, - would you accept patches to support all 3? > > Yes, absolutely. Hopefully, supporting all 3 shouldn't involve any large > changes since they are all based on the same code. > > > Do you want a bsd maintainer for libusb? > > We do have some people who are helping on the BSD portion including the > original coder of the BSD supported and some people who have submitted > some updated patches since. ok, cool. > I suggest you talk with them first. If they cannot or wish not to > continue maintaining the BSD code, then I would have no problems with > someone else picking up that roll. Who are they? or should i just hang out on this list and wait for them to turn up? > > I want to start using liubusb for a project thats just started: > > > > http://pointless.net/libpdmp/ > > > > so i'd be happy to contribute. > > Excellent. > > > The other problem is that the bsd's already ship with a libusb, but it's > > there to support hid devices - would you be prepared to rename libusb to > > something else (e.g. libxpusb for cross platform or whatever?). > > I don't know. If their library only supports HID, then why not have them > rename it to libhid or something similar? It seems like it's a misnomer > on their part. yes, and i've sugested it on the bsd-usb mailing list, but i havn't got an answer yet. > The idea was libusb would be a generic USB library for all OS'. Yes, i understand that, but 'libusb.*' and 'usb.h' are pretty much gareented to exist on any os that supports usb. Hmm, ok, Solaris dosn't, they call everything USBA (Solaris USB Architecture), i dunno about Mac OS X. So i was sugesting, that to avoid clashes, you rename it. Obviously this is going to problematic tho. Does autoconf support some kind of library renameing macro (i'm not an autoconf wiz)? applications could then check for the renamed library (libxxusb), and if they don't find it, libusb. There are already released versions of all 3 bsd's with libusb's tho. (several of FreeBSD). > > I'll raise the issue on the bsd-usb mailing list and see if there is any > > support for renameing the bsd one. > > Many Linux distributions are already shipping libusb as well, so > renaming this libusb to something else would be a pain in the ass as > well. Yeah, thats why i asked the bsd's too - i don't think there is any software that uses the bsd libusb that dosn't ship with the relevent bsd. Ick, this is going to be a pain to sort out. Another possibility, that would have a fair chance of succeding, is for someone to add compatability to the libusb that ships with the bsd's with the API for your libusb - this would have the added advantage (from the point of view that the bsd's would be more lickly to accept the changes) that the additions would be BSD[1] licensed. Do you consider the _API_ (not the code it's self) to be LGPL'd? would you be happy about it being cloned under a different license? (i guess not, but i have to ask). That way the bsd's ship with a library thats compatable with yours, so users of your api are happy, and there are no icky licensing issues for anyone. [1] When I say BSD license I mean the one without caluse 3[2], aka an XFree86 style one thats 'GPL compatible'. Yes this is all way to much like hard work. [2] see: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html -- "The aurochs was the great, black bull that was painted on cave walls alongside bison and mammoths by tacky prehistoric minimalist artists who had no sense whatsoever of modeling or perspective." [see: http://www.aristotle.net/~swarmack/aurochs.html] [0x2ECA0975] |