<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Hello</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">I've packaged
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/tree/fightwarn-libusb-1.0+0.1">https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/tree/fightwarn-libusb-1.0+0.1</a>
for EL7 and uploaded the resulting rpms to
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://wolfy.fedorapeople.org/nut-2.7.5-0.nut_fightwarn/">https://wolfy.fedorapeople.org/nut-2.7.5-0.nut_fightwarn/</a></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">These packages are built against stock
libusb i.e. compatible with libusb-0.1. Minimal testing shows them
as functional but as always, YMMV.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">I had to disable support for i2c, it
triggered some build errors and I am in no mood to debug them.</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">As a sidenote, upsc reports 2.7.4.1 not
2.7.5 so probably I should rename the packages as well:</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">[wolfy@wolfy epel-7-x86_64]$ which upsc<br>
/usr/bin/upsc<br>
[wolfy@wolfy epel-7-x86_64]$ rpm -qf /usr/bin/upsc<br>
nut-client-2.7.5-0.nut_fightwarn_libusb.wolfy.x86_64<br>
[wolfy@wolfy epel-7-x86_64]$ upsc -V<br>
Network UPS Tools upscmd 2.7.4.1<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
I'll try to build another set of packages against libusbx aka EL7's
libusb-1.0
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Manuel<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/26/21 12:07, Strahil Nikolov via
Nut-upsuser wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1125907703.814750.1640513245403@mail.yahoo.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
Hey Jim,
<div id="yMail_cursorElementTracker_1640513207317"><br>
</div>
<div id="yMail_cursorElementTracker_1640513207522"><br>
</div>
<div id="yMail_cursorElementTracker_1640513207668">do we have
precompiled binaries or rpm ?</div>
<div id="yMail_cursorElementTracker_1640513226971"><br>
</div>
<div id="yMail_cursorElementTracker_1640513227178">Best Regards,</div>
<div id="yMail_cursorElementTracker_1640513230658">Strahil Nikolov<br>
<br>
<blockquote style="margin: 0 0 20px 0;">
<div style="font-family:Roboto, sans-serif; color:#6D00F6;">
<div>On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 11:51, Jim Klimov via
Nut-upsdev</div>
<div><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:nut-upsdev@alioth-lists.debian.net"><nut-upsdev@alioth-lists.debian.net></a> wrote:</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div> This work has originally delayed merging of libusb-1.0
support (from issue <a
href="https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/issues/300"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/issues/300</a>
and several candidate branches to pick from), in particular
because with the original codebase sporting thousands of
build warnings, it was hard to notice any new "offences"
introduced by this large set of changes. I was afraid that
merging it would even have to wait until after the next NUT
release, but in the end found that some remaining warnings
in the original USB-related NUT codebase made those
branches' changes the better solution.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Now, before we find the hard way if the cure is worse
than the disease, I would like to ask people with
USB-connected UPSes (and also those using the MGE SHUT
protocol) to build and test <a
href="https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/tree/fightwarn-libusb-1.0+0.1"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/tree/fightwarn-libusb-1.0+0.1</a>
branch with their setups - hopefully hitting as many OSes
and CPU types as feasible, as well as trying both
libusb-0.1, libusb-1.0 (and not sure about
libusb-0.1-compat).</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>