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 at 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