Trying to install Canon printer driver package (rpm), I get a dependency error:
libusb-1.0.so.0 is needed....
The version currently installed on my 5.9 system is libusb-0.1.12-6.el5 and, AFAIK (per yum), no upgrade to that is available.
So question: Do higher centos versions have libusb-1.0.so ? (We could perform a quick inventory with:
uname -r; rpm -q libusb
Thanks.
Am 14.12.2014 um 13:29 schrieb ken:
Trying to install Canon printer driver package (rpm), I get a dependency error:
libusb-1.0.so.0 is needed....
The version currently installed on my 5.9 system is libusb-0.1.12-6.el5 and, AFAIK (per yum), no upgrade to that is available.
The canon rpm does not fit for your CentOS release.
Btw. update to CentOS 5.11 running "yum update". 5.9 is outdated by security and bug fixes.
So question: Do higher centos versions have libusb-1.0.so ? (We could perform a quick inventory with:
uname -r; rpm -q libusb
http://pkgs.org/search/libusb-1.0.so.0?type=provides
Thanks.
Alexander
On 12/14/14 07:29, ken wrote:
uname -r; rpm -q libusb
CentOS 6.6 says: [mlapier@mushroom ~]$ uname -r; rpm -q libusb 2.6.32-504.1.3.el6.i686 libusb-0.1.12-23.el6.i686
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 07:22:01PM -0500, Mark LaPierre wrote:
On 12/14/14 07:29, ken wrote:
uname -r; rpm -q libusb
CentOS 6.6 says: [mlapier@mushroom ~]$ uname -r; rpm -q libusb 2.6.32-504.1.3.el6.i686 libusb-0.1.12-23.el6.i686
CentOS 5 has: libusb-0.1.12
CentOS 6 has: libusb-0.1.12 libusb1-1.0.9
CentOS 7 has: libusb-0.1.4 libusbx-1.0.15
On 12/14/2014 07:58 PM, Stephen Harris wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 07:22:01PM -0500, Mark LaPierre wrote:
On 12/14/14 07:29, ken wrote:
uname -r; rpm -q libusb
CentOS 6.6 says: [mlapier@mushroom ~]$ uname -r; rpm -q libusb 2.6.32-504.1.3.el6.i686 libusb-0.1.12-23.el6.i686
CentOS 5 has: libusb-0.1.12
CentOS 6 has: libusb-0.1.12 libusb1-1.0.9
CentOS 7 has: libusb-0.1.4 libusbx-1.0.15
Thanks to everyone who's replied thus far. It seems the information given at http://pkgs.org/ isn't fully correct.
These multiple libusb's throw quite a bit of ambiguity and doubt into the process of compiling and linking sources which ask for libusb v.1.0.x. Symlinking or changing a Makefile or *.h file might allow compilation to succeed (or not), then might successful linking (or not), and then might let the executable(s) run correctly (or not); the last part I (or anyone else) might not find out until after the merchandise return deadline has passed. Who knows? One thing is certain: Canon could have put a little more effort into their code and provided a friendlier and less doubtful driver package.
Speaking of improvements: Better commands for displaying this info would be:
cat /etc/redhat-release rpm -qa | grep libusb
-
Alexander Dalloz -
ken -
Mark LaPierre -
Stephen Harris