Google Code Exporter

``` I have this problem to. ``` Original comment by `[email protected]` on 20 May 2014 at 7:08

``` How is this question ? ``` Original comment by `[email protected]` on 1 Sep 2014 at 2:39

``` Patches welcome :) What kind of security token would this work with? Is there a standard spec for how the diversified key is calculated? ``` Original comment by `[email protected]`...

``` In http://www.libnfc.org/community/post/2579/#p2579 you justify the use of libusb-0.1 to keep Windows compatibility. libusbx (http://libusbx.org/) is a fork of libusb to improve Windows support. Maybe that could solve the Windows...

``` I agree this would be useful as a lot of linux distros are trying to obsolete the old libusb and libusbx is now pretty much standard ``` Original comment...

``` Indeed I just realized libusb-1.0 *is* libusbx under Debian. How confusing... Any volunteer to attempt the switch in a devel branch? ``` Original comment by `[email protected]` on 10 Oct...

``` Since I got the (orinigal) idea I can work on it. Should I push the devel branch to the server? ``` Original comment by `[email protected]` on 10 Oct 2013...

``` It will take more time than expected. Feel free to also contribute patches. I attach a first patch for m4/libnfc_check_libusb.m4 ``` Original comment by `[email protected]` on 13 Oct 2013...

``` Thanks Ludovic. I pushed a few changes in a new branch libusb10: https://code.google.com/p/libnfc/source/list?name=libusb10 I first isolated all libusb API in usbbus.c and removed it from drivers/... Then your patch...

``` Nice idea to make the change progressive. I don't know a platform where libusb-0.1 is better than libusb-1.0. We may forget libusb-0.1 completely. ``` Original comment by `[email protected]` on...