Re: [flashrom] [PATCH 3/3] Properly include libusb-win32 header.
On 19.01.2015 21:39, Stefan Tauner wrote:
libusb-win32 is using a different header file name for a while, use that on Windows builds to make clear that this is currently the correct header to include.
Yes, but at http://flashrom.org/Windows we still direct users to the old libusb-win32 version which uses the old usb.h. As long as those instructions are in the wiki, this will introduce additional breakage.
Hopefully this will change soonish with migrating away from libusb-0.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner@alumni.tuwien.ac.at> Acked-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner@alumni.tuwien.ac.at> --- Makefile | 5 +++++ dediprog.c | 8 ++++++++ 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile index 54ebfe4..03670d2 100644 --- a/Makefile +++ b/Makefile @@ -843,7 +843,12 @@ endef export LIBPCI_TEST
define LIBUSB0_TEST +#include "platform.h" +#if IS_WINDOWS +#include <lusb0_usb.h> +#else #include <usb.h> +#endif int main(int argc, char **argv) { (void) argc;
We'd have to fix the wiki at the same time we commit this. Regards, Carl-Daniel
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 02:54:35 +0100 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net> wrote:
On 19.01.2015 21:39, Stefan Tauner wrote:
libusb-win32 is using a different header file name for a while, use that on Windows builds to make clear that this is currently the correct header to include.
Yes, but at http://flashrom.org/Windows we still direct users to the old libusb-win32 version which uses the old usb.h. As long as those instructions are in the wiki, this will introduce additional breakage.
That's because that wiki page is even more outdated than libusb-0. :)
Hopefully this will change soonish with migrating away from libusb-0.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner@alumni.tuwien.ac.at> Acked-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner@alumni.tuwien.ac.at> --- Makefile | 5 +++++ dediprog.c | 8 ++++++++ 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile index 54ebfe4..03670d2 100644 --- a/Makefile +++ b/Makefile @@ -843,7 +843,12 @@ endef export LIBPCI_TEST
define LIBUSB0_TEST +#include "platform.h" +#if IS_WINDOWS +#include <lusb0_usb.h> +#else #include <usb.h> +#endif int main(int argc, char **argv) { (void) argc;
We'd have to fix the wiki at the same time we commit this.
The more important question is if it is worth it at all. Under normal circumstances I'd say no, because we should migrate to libusb-1 ASAP. In retrospection of our past development I would that say fixing things that are wrong but easy to fix should be done (immediately), even if they are obsoleted soon in the best case. Is it enough to change the download URL for the precompiled libusb and change the name of usb.h in the description or were there other build-relevant changes between 1.2.4.0 and 1.2.6.0? -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner
On 26.01.2015 09:35, Stefan Tauner wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 02:54:35 +0100 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net> wrote:
On 19.01.2015 21:39, Stefan Tauner wrote:
libusb-win32 is using a different header file name for a while, use that on Windows builds to make clear that this is currently the correct header to include. Yes, but at http://flashrom.org/Windows we still direct users to the old libusb-win32 version which uses the old usb.h. As long as those instructions are in the wiki, this will introduce additional breakage. That's because that wiki page is even more outdated than libusb-0. :)
Hopefully this will change soonish with migrating away from libusb-0.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner@alumni.tuwien.ac.at> Acked-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner@alumni.tuwien.ac.at> --- Makefile | 5 +++++ dediprog.c | 8 ++++++++ 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile index 54ebfe4..03670d2 100644 --- a/Makefile +++ b/Makefile @@ -843,7 +843,12 @@ endef export LIBPCI_TEST
define LIBUSB0_TEST +#include "platform.h" +#if IS_WINDOWS +#include <lusb0_usb.h> +#else #include <usb.h> +#endif int main(int argc, char **argv) { (void) argc; We'd have to fix the wiki at the same time we commit this. The more important question is if it is worth it at all. Under normal circumstances I'd say no, because we should migrate to libusb-1 ASAP. In retrospection of our past development I would that say fixing things that are wrong but easy to fix should be done (immediately), even if they are obsoleted soon in the best case.
Agreed.
Is it enough to change the download URL for the precompiled libusb and change the name of usb.h in the description or were there other build-relevant changes between 1.2.4.0 and 1.2.6.0?
I tried building natively with libusb-win32 1.2.6.0 and it worked with your patch. Please adjust both (bin and devel-filter) libusb-win32 version numbers while you're at it. Regards, Carl-Daniel
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 10:00:17 +0100 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net> wrote:
On 26.01.2015 09:35, Stefan Tauner wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2015 02:54:35 +0100 Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.devel.2006@gmx.net> wrote:
On 19.01.2015 21:39, Stefan Tauner wrote:
libusb-win32 is using a different header file name for a while, use that on Windows builds to make clear that this is currently the correct header to include. Yes, but at http://flashrom.org/Windows we still direct users to the old libusb-win32 version which uses the old usb.h. As long as those instructions are in the wiki, this will introduce additional breakage. That's because that wiki page is even more outdated than libusb-0. :)
Hopefully this will change soonish with migrating away from libusb-0.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner@alumni.tuwien.ac.at> Acked-by: Stefan Tauner <stefan.tauner@alumni.tuwien.ac.at> --- Makefile | 5 +++++ dediprog.c | 8 ++++++++ 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+)
diff --git a/Makefile b/Makefile index 54ebfe4..03670d2 100644 --- a/Makefile +++ b/Makefile @@ -843,7 +843,12 @@ endef export LIBPCI_TEST
define LIBUSB0_TEST +#include "platform.h" +#if IS_WINDOWS +#include <lusb0_usb.h> +#else #include <usb.h> +#endif int main(int argc, char **argv) { (void) argc; We'd have to fix the wiki at the same time we commit this. The more important question is if it is worth it at all. Under normal circumstances I'd say no, because we should migrate to libusb-1 ASAP. In retrospection of our past development I would that say fixing things that are wrong but easy to fix should be done (immediately), even if they are obsoleted soon in the best case.
Agreed.
Is it enough to change the download URL for the precompiled libusb and change the name of usb.h in the description or were there other build-relevant changes between 1.2.4.0 and 1.2.6.0?
I tried building natively with libusb-win32 1.2.6.0 and it worked with your patch. Please adjust both (bin and devel-filter) libusb-win32 version numbers while you're at it.
Done, and the patch was committed in r1877. Thanks. -- Kind regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen, Stefan Tauner
participants (2)
-
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger -
Stefan Tauner