[sane-devel] Two xsane-Win32-0.96 annoyancies
10 Oct 2004 22:36:43 +0200
Am Fre, 2004-10-08 um 11.29 schrieb peder:
> Thanx for a nifty port.
> I've been happlily using xsane in out school network for a couple of
> years. We have 5 old linux boxes scattered around the place as scanner
> servers and the WinXP/Win98-clients use xsane to connect.
> However there are two issues.
> The minor one: Is there a technical reason why the program has to
> be installed to c:\sane? Can't the program search for it's files
> using perhaps a XSANE variable or in current directory?
> I like to have the program installed on the server so I can upgrade
> it for every user and not having to walk around 300+ PC's.
> This works in 0.90 on Win98 but not on WinXP for some reason.
> In 0.96 it works on neither.
XSane uses hardcoded paths. This is a usual way on unix systems.
The paths are created while configurating xsane and are compiled in.
When you compile xsane-win32 yourself then you can compile in your own
> I found out you only have to put some files in c:\sane so I can
> distribute those every time, so this issue is not a biggie.
> The major one: In xsane-0.83 and 0.90 I could run
> 'xsane.exe ip-of-scan-server:device'. In 0.96 this doesn't work; I have
> to add all my servers in net.conf, wait for xsane to "scan for devices"
> and choose the right one from five nearly identical entries.
> Maybe I can pick the right one but definitely not my users.
> Can we please have the scan-server argument back?
The differences between 0.95/0.96 and the previous xsane-win32 versions
are that the new versions are linked against sane-dll, the old versions
were linked agains sane-net.
You have to use the same syntax as in linux:
> FYI, version 0.90 was much faster than 0.96. I tried them on a
> 400MHz and 0.96 was really sluggish, perhaps due to newer gtk versions.
On my systems I had the feeling that xsane-0.96 is much faster. Do you
use the same settings in preferences and view?