Difference b/w this libusb "1.0" and other 2:0.1.12-15? Maverick.

Asked by Kiers on 2012-08-14

WHat's the diference between the TWO libusb's showing up in Synaptic? this one versus 2:0.1.12-15? are they both compatible? I have both installed? but having mtpfs problems where dmesg says: usbfs: mtpfs process did not take ownership of bus 0...?

Question information

Language:
English Edit question
Status:
Answered
For:
Ubuntu libusb-1.0 Edit question
Assignee:
No assignee Edit question
Last query:
Last reply:

Maverick is dead, so it's pretty moot. It is not supported here or anywhere else, nor are there any updates for it. I suggest you run a full backup then reinstall with a clean install of Precise.

Bob Bib (bobbib) said : #2

actionparsnip,
I think that Kiers asked about the difference between
 'libusb-0.1-4' and 'libusb-1.0-0'
packages provided by the following source packages:
 https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libusb
 https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libusb-1.0

Therefore, Ubuntu Maverick doesn't matter here.

Bob Bib (bobbib) said : #3

From that point of view:
1) binary packages built from the 'libusb-1.0' source package (like 'libusb-1.0-0') provide the current libusb-1.0 API;
2) binary packages built from the 'libusb' source package (like 'libusb-0.1-4') provide the (native, not a compatibility layer) legacy libusb-0.1 API (needed by some programs which have not switched to the current libusb-1.0 API).
Look at http://www.libusb.org/ for more info.

More to say, starting from Quantal (12.10), Ubuntu uses 'libusbx' instead of 'libusb-1.0': https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/libusbx
Look at http://www.libusbx.org/ for more info.

Bob Bib (bobbib) said : #4

For Kiers,
finally:
1) libusb-0.1 and libusb-1.0 shouldn't conflict with each other;
2) the problem you've mentioned in your question is rather mtpfs-related;
3) as actionparsnip already said, Ubuntu Maverick (10.10) has reached its End-of-Life -- please upgrade your system using an up-to-date and supported Linux distribution;
4) if your problem still persists in the fresh environment, please file a bug report against mtpfs.

Can you help with this problem?

Provide an answer of your own, or ask Kiers for more information if necessary.

To post a message you must log in.