On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 05:51:51PM +0300, Boris Samorodov wrote: > On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 14:39:11 +0000 Bruce Cran wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 17:29:21 +0300 > > Boris Samorodov <bsam_at_ipt.ru> wrote: > > > On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:39:15 +0000 Bruce Cran wrote: > > > > > > > Lots of changes were made a couple of days ago to the > > > > installation of libusb[20]: libusb20 is now installed as libusb, and > > > > libusb20_compat01.h was renamed to usb.h to be compatible with > > > > libusb-0.1. So for example any patches which change <usb.h> to > > > > <libusb20_compat01.h> can be removed. > > > > > > Wow! Bruce, that was a nice shot. You definitely undertand what's > > > going on here. Thanks! > > > > > > Pav, can you test the attached patch? It work for the latest > > > i386/amd64 CURRENT for me. > > > You may find you're repeating work that's already been done: > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/graphics/libgphoto2/ shows > > libgphoto2 was updated a few days ago to fix the build problems > > introduced with the renaming. > > It's the last version that doesn't work here. Please, take a look at > the patch at my previous email and you'll understand that I > implemented just what you said: "any patches which change <usb.h> to > <libusb20_compat01.h> can be removed". ;-) > > I think that an extra-patch for OSVERSION>800069 was introduced by an > accident. Yes, it should be removed. AndrewReceived on Thu Mar 12 2009 - 22:18:24 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:43 UTC