Package Details: python2-pyusb 1.0.0-2

Git Clone URL: (read-only)
Package Base: python2-pyusb
Description: A native Python module written in C which provides USB access.
Upstream URL:
Licenses: custom
Conflicts: pyusb=1.0.0
Provides: pyusb
Replaces: python2-pyusb-beta
Submitter: luolimao
Maintainer: NicoHood (georgyo)
Last Packager: NicoHood
Votes: 86
Popularity: 2.617544
First Submitted: 2013-04-05 23:58
Last Updated: 2016-08-20 19:57

Latest Comments

georgyo commented on 2016-08-22 13:47

Yea, I re-orphaned the package. After reading the comments, I agree that python-pyusb and python2-pyusb should be the same PKGBUILD file. There is no reason why these are separate repos. Changes made to one, must (should) be made to the other.

I'll gladly be a co-maintainer if that doesn't happen.

NicoHood commented on 2016-08-20 19:30

One guy on the IRC said we still need a python 2 and 3 package. However the beta package is obsolete now.

I suggest we should change the upstream link to the github page instead though.

The submitter of v1.0 (georgyo) orphan the package again? I will then pickup this package, co maintainers welcome, just ask ;)

Edit: I changed to libusb 1.0 as the readme states it also works now with the new libusb. The other changes are more or less minor. I am just not sure why this conflict entry is there.

NicoHood commented on 2016-08-19 21:58

You are all right, those packages are outdated now. The new should add a "replace" for those old packages.

What I like about the python3 package is that it downloads its files from github.

I am just not sure if we use python3 for setting up the library, if it will also work with python2 then. I am not that python expert, so I am not sure if 2 PKGBUILDs are still required or not. If not we should notify the other package maintainer to add a replace of this and the beta package and delete them finally. Does anyone know more about this?

jpkotta commented on 2016-08-19 20:44

FYI there is also, which should also probably be merged.

The URL should be updated too.

anatolik commented on 2016-08-19 19:53

And it is probably worth merging it with

anatolik commented on 2016-08-19 19:52


thanks for the comments. I am going to orphan the package and let you update it.

georgyo commented on 2016-08-15 02:22

Is there any blockers on getting this updated to 1.0? It's been released since 4/30 and software now depends on that version.

NicoHood commented on 2016-07-19 16:04

I've updated to 1.0.0 stable release:

russo79 commented on 2013-12-18 07:18


I'm aware of all that. But quoting website:
"The project is divided in two major versions: the stable 0.x and the under development 1.0 versions"
Version 1.0 is still a development version. and that's the reason why I still didn't updated this package to it, and that I'm not going to do it now.

russo79 commented on 2013-12-18 07:16


I'm aware of all that. The think is that like you wrote, the version name is 1.0.0beta1 (A beta version).
And that's the reason why I still didn't updated this package to version 1, and that I'm not going to do it now.

All comments