[sane-devel] where to put firmware files?

[Michael Herder]

Henning Meier-Geinitz, Samstag, 5. Oktober 2002 18:45:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 05:27:30PM +0100, Major A wrote:
> > Yes, but the firmware usually contains all the code that drives the
> > scanner, including USB endpoint handling code. Therefore two scanners
> > with the same firmware would have the same command protocol, thus they
> > should be handled by the same backend anyway.
>
> Yes, but having the same name doesn't mean that's the same firmware. I
> just wanted to point out that the firmware names aren't that unique.
>
> > Maybe a naming convention would be most appropriate? Say, instead of
> > subdirectories backend1 and backend2, one would create images called
> > backend1-ps1.usb and backend2-sbfw.usb or so.
>
> I wouldn't do that because that means forcing the user to rename the
> firmware files. It's confusing enough to find the correct one, extract
> it from some Windows installer file and copy it to the correct
> location. I would like to keep at least the filename.
>
> I think the directory approach (e.g. sane/umax) is ok. The backend
> itsself knows which firmware is relevant for which scanner so that's
> ok.

I don't know, whether I understand this correctly, but isn't the installation 
directory only important, if the firmware file is included in/installed with 
SANE (something that most backend authors won't do due to licensing issues) ?
If shipping the firmware files with SANE is planned, then it's IMHO ok to 
rename the file, because in this case no user interaction is required. One 
could for instance add the md5sum to the file name, which should result in a 
unique name. Or one could use uuidgen (or another method) to create a unique 
identifier.
If it isn't planned to ship the firmware with SANE, then it's most important 
(again IMHO), that the user can set the path in the .conf file. This way a 
user can e.g load the firmware from a windows drive, which (s)he has perhaps 
mounted anyways.

Michael