[CentOS] Error: libusb-1.0.so.0 is needed....

[ken]

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