Page MenuHomeSolus

Update libftdi1 to 1.4
ClosedPublic

Authored by chax on Jul 28 2019, 12:45 PM.
Tags
None
Referenced Files
F11066598: D6834.diff
Fri, Aug 11, 6:22 PM
F11010424: D6834.diff
Thu, Aug 3, 3:27 AM
F10948987: D6834.id16572.diff
Sun, Jul 16, 1:27 AM
F10943601: D6834.id.diff
Fri, Jul 14, 7:45 PM
F10894410: D6834.id16494.diff
Jul 1 2023, 10:35 AM
F10876878: D6834.id16493.diff
Jun 20 2023, 2:16 PM
F10876458: D6834.id16574.diff
Jun 20 2023, 11:11 AM
F10875020: D6834.id16494.diff
Jun 20 2023, 3:38 AM
Subscribers

Details

Summary

Update libftdi1 to 1.4

Changelog can be found here

Test Plan

Rebuilt reverse dependencies: lirc, libsigrok, and openocd using this version of libftdi1.
Rebuilt avrdude with libftdi1 support. Avrdude now depends on libftdi1 and has usb support.

Diff Detail

Repository
R3635 libftdi1
Branch
master
Lint
No Lint Coverage
Unit
No Test Coverage

Event Timeline

chax requested review of this revision.Jul 28 2019, 12:45 PM
chax retitled this revision from Update libfdti1 to 1.4 to Update libftdi1 to 1.4.Jul 29 2019, 8:24 AM
chax edited the summary of this revision. (Show Details)
chax edited the test plan for this revision. (Show Details)
JoshStrobl added subscribers: ermo, JoshStrobl.

Have you tested this against lirc, libsigrok, and openocd to ensure they still compile at least against this version?

Maybe @ermo can check if this works with lirc -> kodi?

package.yml
9

Still incorrect. Needs to be a block like:

description: |
    Blah I am a description. Herp derp.
14–16

Overkill on newlines. Can all be put on one line to be honest.

This revision now requires changes to proceed.Aug 4 2019, 5:16 PM

Is rebuild enough to check if dependent packages are compatible wit this version? I can make local builds with this one in local repository to check if they at least build.

In D6834#108787, @chax wrote:

Is rebuild enough to check if dependent packages are compatible wit this version? I can make local builds with this one in local repository to check if they at least build.

In theory, yes. That'll at least potentially shed any light on if it is using any previously exposed private ABIs.

chax edited the test plan for this revision. (Show Details)

Fixed formatting in package.yml as suggested by @JoshStrobl

Fixed formatting in package.yml

JoshStrobl added inline comments.
package.yml
6

Let's fix the license while we're at it. Should be LGPL-2.1-or-later.

This revision now requires changes to proceed.Aug 8 2019, 8:52 AM
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Aug 8 2019, 2:00 PM
This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.