[compatibility] libusbx replaced by libusb-1.0 in most distros #897

Nightwalker-87 · 2020-03-26T09:54:16Z

As of March 2020 on most distros libusbx has been replaced by the maintained libusb-1.0.
This reflects the re-merging of the libusbx-project-fork back into the libusb-project (see https://github.com/libusb/libusb/wiki/FAQ#libusborg_libusbxorg_and_libusbinfo) as referenced by @slyshykO in #782. As mentioned in PR #895, I did some small research on this topic to find out about the current state of support by various distributions currently maintained.

Here is the result from https://pkgs.org/search/?q=libusb (as of Mar 2020):

1.0.23

Alpine Edge
Alpine 3.11
ALT Linux Sisyphus
Arch Linux
Debian Sid
Fedora Rawhide --> libusbx, but compatible, as libusb-codebase is used
KaOS
OpenMandriva Cooker
OpenMandriva Lx 4.1
openSUSE Tumbleweed
Slackware Current
Solus
Ubuntu 20.04 LTS
Ubuntu 19.10

1.0.22

Alpine 3.10
Alpine 3.9
CentOS 8 --> libusbx, but compatible, as libusb-codebase is used
Debian 10 (Buster)
Fedora 31 --> libusbx, but compatible, as libusb-codebase is used
Fedora 30 --> libusbx, but compatible, as libusb-codebase is used
Mageia Cauldron
Mageia 7.1
NetBSD 9.0
NetBSD 8.1
NetBSD 7.2

1.0.21

CentOS 7 --> libusbx, but compatible, as libusb-codebase is used
Debian 9 (Stretch)
openSUSE Leap 15.2
openSUSE Leap 15.1
Ubuntu 18.04 LTS

1.0.20

OpenMandriva Lx 3.0
Slackware 14.2
Ubuntu 16.04 LTS

... older libusb versions --> would no longer be supported

Debian 8 (Jessie) - 1.0.19
Ubuntu 14.04 LTS - 1.0.17
CentOS 6 - 1.0.9
Slackware 14.1 - 1.0.9

Special case
... on FreeBSD libusb is integrated into the system:

FreeBSD 13 - linux_libusb-13.0r358841 --> libusb-codebase 1.0.16 - 1.0.18 used
FreeBSD 12 - linux_libusb-11.0r261448_4 --> libusb-codebase 1.0.16 - 1.0.18 used
FreeBSD 11 - linux_libusb-11.0r261448_4 --> libusb-codebase 1.0.16 - 1.0.18 used

Looking at this, we should set libusb 1.0.20 as the minimum required version (apart from FreeBSD) to ensure widespread compatibility.

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

Nightwalker-87 · 2020-03-26T10:04:34Z

This initiated a ongoing discussion in PR #895 which shall be continued here, as the related PR should solely focus on (direct) changes in the code. The beginning of this discussion is now posted here:

Nightwalker-87:
@Vascom: You are on Fedora right? What do you think about this? Why does Fedora still use libusbx BTW? Is your library that outdated as well?

Reply by Vascom:

@Nightwalker-87 I don't know why it still not updated in rawhide. Need to ask maintainer.
But even if this update will be done it will be never updated for current releases of Fedora and RHEL/CentOS.

Reply by slyshykO:

Looks like starting from this commit https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libusbx/commits/master Fedora switched from libusbx to libusb but don't change the package name.

Reply by Vascom:

No.
libusb - for compatibility with 0.1 API.
libusbx - main libusb as I know.

Reply by slyshykO:

@Vascom Yes. My point is they (Fedora) use sources from libusb-project for libusbx-package.

Reply by Vascom:

upstream libusbx has merged back with libusb and is now called libusb again, but we already have a libusb package for the old libusb-compat-0.1, renaming that to libusb-compat while at the same time giving this its name is a bit tricky, lets stick with the libusbx name for now

Nightwalker-87 · 2020-03-26T10:28:28Z

@Vascom: There are three relevant things:

As @slyshykO mentioned before: the package name is not the relevant thing, but if LIBUSBX_API_VERSION is used by the package which then remains from the libusbx-codebase
Nobody cares about libusb-compat, libusb-0.1 or whatever the older packages for libusb 0.1 compatibility versions are called. These are neither addressed by this issue, nor relevant.
¯\ _(ツ) _/¯
Please test the current development branch with your fedora environment as it comes without any reference to LIBUSBX_API_VERSION. If it works we are fine here, if not, the incompatibility with fedora is present for quite a long time, as previously LIBUSBX_API_VERSION could only be called on FreeBSD systems anyway (where it was not needed anymore, as we found out in [compatibility] LIBUSBX_API_VERSION undef #782 previously).

Vascom · 2020-03-26T12:54:37Z

1.0.23 pushed to Fedora rawhide now https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libusbx/c/5684853d449b7fe3a81112cd59f9336fbc274319?branch=master

Nightwalker-87 · 2020-03-26T14:02:25Z

That's good news for us.

Nightwalker-87 · 2020-03-26T14:29:11Z

Similar result for Fedora 30 (oldest supported version):
Here it is libusb 1.0.22 despite the (false) package name: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/libusbx/c/cbd5348ee14638264fe3bb79c3b27a5ed34271ed?branch=f30

One can conclude that this is done equally in Fedora 31, so we are fine here. That's the reason why it works even without any LIBUSBX_API_VERSION remnants currently. 👍

Nightwalker-87 · 2020-03-26T15:47:43Z

@lhondareyte @DanielO: It appears you both use (or used) FreeBSD. Can you provide us some information regarding the libusb versions present on recent releases (11, 12, 13)? pkgs.org was not very helpful in this aspect.

lhondareyte · 2020-03-26T17:12:37Z

Hi,
For FreeBSD, libusb is in the base system, it's not a package. It's compatible with libusb1 & 2 . You can get more informations with "pkconf":
pkgconf --libs --cflags libusb-1.0
pkgconf --libs --cflags libusb-2.0
pkgconf is, as far I know, specific to FreeBSD.
Hope this help.
Regards

Nightwalker-87 · 2020-03-26T17:23:18Z

@lhondareyte: Thx for the useful feedback. What FreeBSD-Version/Release are you on? Can you also checkout the develop branch and test-compile the stlink-tools? With this we could rule out possible regression when we merge the related PR. By now current FreeBSD Releases seem to be the only left "unknowns" (see list above).

lhondareyte · 2020-03-26T18:06:05Z

I am running the latest stable version (12.1p1) (almost). I tried to compile the latest snapshot and it actually failed:
/usr/home/luc/stlink/src/usb.c:34:22: error: use of undeclared identifier 'INT_MAX'
The compilation works with

// src/usb.c
#if defined (__FreeBSD__)
#include <sys/limits.h>
#endif

Which commit/branch do you want to try exactly?

About FreeBSD current (latest dev branch), I only use it on ARM platform. I'll give it a try this week-end: just try to compile only (USB support can be tricky)

Nightwalker-87 · 2020-03-26T18:22:09Z

The latest develop would just be fine, as we still have to decide on, which codelines have to be added in order to make it compile in FreeBSD environments. Thx for helping out with this. 👍

To me it looks like that nobody really bothered about FreeBSD too much before, apart from very few single contributions. Beginning with v1.6.1, I want to make sure which distributions (incl. versions) work and have that put into our documentation as well to reduce continuous "cannot compile on xyz-system" issues here. I'm fed up seeing these.

lhondareyte · 2020-03-26T18:44:31Z

I understand but don't be worried about FreeBSD: stlink is in the ports tree (well, not the latest release) with an active maintainer. And most FreeBSD users use ports ;)
And I regulary check the latest snapshot on FreeBSD and macOS (via rudix)
However, I'll give it a try on FreeBSD 13

Nightwalker-87 · 2020-03-26T18:50:25Z

... well it does make sense to distribute recent fixes and features to this usergroup as well, doesn't it? Old packages are no help here, especially not for available maintainers on that platform.

Nightwalker-87 · 2020-03-27T01:37:56Z

Note: By setting the minimum version requirement for libusb to 1.0.20, we could make this equal for all supported systems (Windows, macOS and even most of the oldest supported linux/unix distributions), thus keeping it simple and memorable.

DanielO · 2020-03-27T01:48:02Z

Hi,
For FreeBSD, libusb is in the base system, it's not a package. It's compatible with libusb1 & 2 . You can get more informations with "pkconf":
pkgconf --libs --cflags libusb-1.0
pkgconf --libs --cflags libusb-2.0
pkgconf is, as far I know, specific to FreeBSD.

FreeBSD ships with pkg-config files for libusb-0.1, libusb-1.0 and libusb-2.0 (2.0 is a FreeBSD specific one).
eg..

[delamerelts 1:44] ~> pkg-config --cflags --libs libusb-0.1
-lusb
[delamerelts 1:44] ~> pkg-config --cflags --libs libusb-1.0
-lusb
[delamerelts 1:45] ~> pkg-config --cflags --libs libusb-2.0
-lusb

This works on Linux too (for me)

[ubuntu 12:17] ~ >pkg-config --cflags --libs libusb-1.0
-I/usr/include/libusb-1.0 -lusb-1.0

slyshykO · 2020-03-27T05:18:18Z

I think we should use the newest libusb that we can. On all platforms.

Nightwalker-87 · 2020-03-27T10:40:34Z

Note: There is a difference between working versions and the minimum required version .
This does not rule out that users should be encouraged (by a note in the documentation) to install the latest available version on their respective system. It only denotes that the tools would be still be capable to compile and run with the oldest version defined. On Ubuntu 16.04 LTS for example 1.0.20 is the newest version available as you can see in the list (and there will be no newer version for this release anymore).

Nightwalker-87 · 2020-03-27T10:45:03Z

@DanielO: What are the exact version strings (e.g. 1.0.22, etc.)? That would be the relevant point here...

lhondareyte · 2020-03-27T11:03:31Z

@DanielO : yes, you're right : pkg-config is a link to pkgconf
@Nightwalker-87 :
libusb_get_version() return 1.0.0.2016 with this code:

version = libusb_get_version();
printf("%d.%d.%d.%d\n", version->major, \
                        version->minor, \
                        version->micro, \ 
                        version->nano);

uname -r
12.1-RELEASE-p2

Nightwalker-87 · 2020-03-27T11:17:24Z

@lhondareyte: o.O That is what I asked for, but it does not seem to help at all. I did not expect a different versioning scheme compared to the one the libusb-project uses...

lhondareyte · 2020-03-27T14:31:58Z

libusb define LIB_API_VERSION since v1.0.13 which describe features that are include. All OSs that you list have this definition. So why do you want to deal with lib version instead of API version?
Currently all supported FreeBSD versions (11,12) and current define this
#define LIBUSB_API_VERSION 0x01000102
Perhaps, I miss something, if so, let me know.
Best regards

Nightwalker-87 · 2020-03-27T14:51:31Z

The LIB_API_VERSION is not the relevant point here as it is used in the stlink-tools codebase already. We have dealt with this in #782. Now we are solely on about how recent we require the package libusb to be at least. We can't help it that FreeBSD has libusb integrated and uses a different versioning scheme than the libusb-project, what makes it hard to compare both codebases with each other. So we can not say anything like libusb 1.0.0.2016 on FreeBSD derives from the e.g. libusb-1.0.20 package from the libusb-project or alike. We can do so for all other operating systems.

lhondareyte · 2020-03-27T15:06:27Z

In this issue, this is LIBUSBX_API_VERSION the problem. LIBUSBX_API_VERSION is almost marked as deprecated in libusb and does not exist on FreeBSD:

/* The following is kept for compatibility, but will be deprecated in the future */
#define LIBUSBX_API_VERSION LIBUSB_API_VERSION

It has nothing to do with FreeBSD. Versioning scheme for API_VERSION is the same than others OSes. And many ports use the native FreeBSD version without problems.

Nightwalker-87 · 2020-03-27T15:15:31Z

So what would be a solution to this (apart from trusting on that it will run and without tracking a version on FreeBSD)? I feel uncomfortable with this as one would have to look at this special case every time a new version is published on FreeBSD and test it manually.

lhondareyte · 2020-03-27T15:27:10Z

I'll take a look. For short, any reference to LIBUSBX_API_VERSION should be remove from stlink code.
Do you know the minimal API_VERSION to works with stlink? In fact, wihch features do you need?
But it looks strange to me that you spend so much time for Ubuntu 12.04 that is no more supported since 2017

Nightwalker-87 · 2020-03-27T15:53:49Z

I'll take a look. For short, any reference to LIBUSBX_API_VERSION should be remove from stlink code.

This is already the case in the develop branch, as I wanted to get rid of this deprecated stuff.

Do you know the minimal API_VERSION to works with stlink? In fact, wihch features do you need?

No, I don't, but that is what I am looking for. If we can find out the LIBUSB_API_VERSION of the 1.0.20 package, we can compare it to the one in FreeBSD. Maybe that is another approach to determine where the codebase derived from.

I would no longer like to see all these unknowns we have been dealing with up to now. As we have several tickets related to libusb issues, not having this defined clearly does not help. I feel like this is hindering maintenance in this project.

lhondareyte · 2020-03-27T17:58:18Z

I have made an inventory on latest officials releases:

1.0.12 and above dont define *API_VERSION
1.0.13 to 1.0.17 define LIBUSBX_API_VERSION only
since 1.0.18 both LIBUSB_API_VERSION and LIBUSBX_API_VERSION are defined as follow

define LIBUSB_API_VERSION 0x010001xx
define LIBUSBX_API_VERSION LIBUSB_API_VERSION

LIBUSBX_API_VERSION appeared in 1.0.13 and LIBUSB_API_VERSION in 1.0.18

A simple solution could be, for every OSes:

#include <libusb.h>

#if !defined ( LIBUSBX_API_VERSION )
 #if defined (__FreeBSD__)
   #define LIBUSBX_API_VVERSION LIBUSB_API_VERSION
 #elif !defined (LIBUSB_API_VERSION)
   #error unsupported libusb version
 #endif
#endif

#define MINIMAL_API_VERSION 0x01000102

#if ( LIBUSB_API_VERSION < MINIMAL_API_VERSION )
 #error unsupported libusb version
#endif

Ok on FB12 and macOS10.14

lhondareyte · 2020-03-27T18:49:10Z

About LIBUSBX_API_VERSION/LIBUSB_API_VERSION :

v1.0.13 : 0x01000100
v1.0.14 : 0x010000FF
v1.0.15 : 0x01000101
v1.0.16 : 0x01000102
v1.0.17 : 0x01000102
v1.0.18 : 0x01000102
v1.0.19 : 0x01000103
v1.0.20 : 0x01000104
v1.0.21 : 0x01000105
v1.0.22 : 0x01000106
v1.0.23 : 0x01000107

Nightwalker-87 · 2020-03-27T21:47:08Z

@lhondareyte: Excellent, and what is the LIBUSB_API_VERSION string is present on each FreeBSD 11, 12, 13? Can one look that up somewhere on the web? By this, we are finally able to gain this information via the laborious route... I can then complete the listing above and a final decision can be made.

DanielO · 2020-03-28T01:50:34Z

They're all 0x01000102:
11.0.0 - https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/release/11.0.0/lib/libusb/libusb.h?revision=354337&view=markup#l38
12.1.0 - https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/release/12.1.0/lib/libusb/libusb.h?revision=354337&view=markup#l38
Head - https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/lib/libusb/libusb.h?revision=326219&view=markup#l38

It hasn't changed since that #define was added in r301957
https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/head/lib/libusb/libusb.h?revision=301957&view=markup

Nightwalker-87 · 2020-03-28T15:37:23Z

@DanielO: Thx for checking! Please let us know if this changes someday.

ok, so we actually have to stay on libusb 1.0.16 ... 1.0.18 codebase then for FreeBSD for compatibility reasons. In terms of implementation we will likely check for the 0x01000102 in cmake here.

I'll do a new table for our documentation that is going to list all what we have found out by now.

@slyshykO: Can you extend you PR #895 with the discussed check for windows and maybe also update the cmake routine for FreeBSD?

slyshykO · 2020-03-28T19:22:25Z

I've updated the #895. Please, take a look.

- Added info on version support - Updated compiling instructions - Minor formatting fixes (Closes #896, #897)

- Added info on version support - Updated compiling instructions - Updated minGW-w64 gcc-TC to v8.1.0 - Minor formatting fixes (Closes #896, #897, #899)

- Added info on version support - Updated compiling instructions - Updated minGW-w64 gcc-TC to v8.1.0 - Minor formatting fixes (Closes stlink-org#896, stlink-org#897, stlink-org#899)

Nightwalker-87 mentioned this issue Mar 26, 2020

[compatibility] update of libusb #895

Merged

Nightwalker-87 self-assigned this Mar 26, 2020

Nightwalker-87 added code/compatibility dependency/libusb priority/high labels Mar 26, 2020

Nightwalker-87 added this to the v1.6.1 milestone Mar 26, 2020

Nightwalker-87 linked a pull request Mar 26, 2020 that will close this issue

[compatibility] update of libusb #895

Merged

Nightwalker-87 added os/freeBSD os/linux labels Mar 26, 2020

Nightwalker-87 mentioned this issue Mar 26, 2020

[compatibility] define min. cmake version for supported distributions #899

Closed

Nightwalker-87 removed a link to a pull request Apr 2, 2020

[compatibility] update of libusb #895

Merged

Nightwalker-87 added the general/documentation label Apr 2, 2020

Nightwalker-87 linked a pull request Apr 3, 2020 that will close this issue

[compatibility] update of libusb #895

Merged

Nightwalker-87 added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 3, 2020

[doc] compiling & version support

4322ebe

- Added info on version support - Updated compiling instructions - Minor formatting fixes (Closes #896, #897)

Nightwalker-87 closed this as completed Apr 3, 2020

Nightwalker-87 assigned slyshykO Apr 3, 2020

Nightwalker-87 added status/resolved and removed priority/high labels Apr 3, 2020

Nightwalker-87 added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 4, 2020

Updated compiling doc & version support

27aa888

- Added info on version support - Updated compiling instructions - Updated minGW-w64 gcc-TC to v8.1.0 - Minor formatting fixes (Closes #896, #897, #899)

stlink-org locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators May 6, 2020

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[compatibility] libusbx replaced by libusb-1.0 in most distros #897

[compatibility] libusbx replaced by libusb-1.0 in most distros #897

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 26, 2020 •

edited

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 26, 2020

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 26, 2020

Vascom commented Mar 26, 2020

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 26, 2020

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 26, 2020

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 26, 2020

lhondareyte commented Mar 26, 2020 •

edited

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 26, 2020

lhondareyte commented Mar 26, 2020 •

edited

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 26, 2020

lhondareyte commented Mar 26, 2020

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 26, 2020

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 27, 2020

DanielO commented Mar 27, 2020

slyshykO commented Mar 27, 2020

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 27, 2020

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 27, 2020

lhondareyte commented Mar 27, 2020 •

edited

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 27, 2020

lhondareyte commented Mar 27, 2020

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 27, 2020

lhondareyte commented Mar 27, 2020 •

edited

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 27, 2020

lhondareyte commented Mar 27, 2020 •

edited

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 27, 2020

lhondareyte commented Mar 27, 2020 •

edited

lhondareyte commented Mar 27, 2020 •

edited

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 27, 2020

DanielO commented Mar 28, 2020

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 28, 2020

slyshykO commented Mar 28, 2020

[compatibility] libusbx replaced by libusb-1.0 in most distros #897

[compatibility] libusbx replaced by libusb-1.0 in most distros #897

Comments

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 26, 2020 • edited

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 26, 2020

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 26, 2020

Vascom commented Mar 26, 2020

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 26, 2020

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 26, 2020

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 26, 2020

lhondareyte commented Mar 26, 2020 • edited

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 26, 2020

lhondareyte commented Mar 26, 2020 • edited

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 26, 2020

lhondareyte commented Mar 26, 2020

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 26, 2020

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 27, 2020

DanielO commented Mar 27, 2020

slyshykO commented Mar 27, 2020

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 27, 2020

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 27, 2020

lhondareyte commented Mar 27, 2020 • edited

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 27, 2020

lhondareyte commented Mar 27, 2020

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 27, 2020

lhondareyte commented Mar 27, 2020 • edited

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 27, 2020

lhondareyte commented Mar 27, 2020 • edited

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 27, 2020

lhondareyte commented Mar 27, 2020 • edited

lhondareyte commented Mar 27, 2020 • edited

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 27, 2020

DanielO commented Mar 28, 2020

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 28, 2020

slyshykO commented Mar 28, 2020

Nightwalker-87 commented Mar 26, 2020 •

edited

lhondareyte commented Mar 26, 2020 •

edited

lhondareyte commented Mar 26, 2020 •

edited

lhondareyte commented Mar 27, 2020 •

edited

lhondareyte commented Mar 27, 2020 •

edited

lhondareyte commented Mar 27, 2020 •

edited

lhondareyte commented Mar 27, 2020 •

edited

lhondareyte commented Mar 27, 2020 •

edited