sane config files [was [sane-devel] Infrared channel]]

[Oliver Rauch]

Hello. 

I think there will be a possibility that the backend finds out what
scanner model talks to in almost all cases. Of course it is hard work to
find out what registers behave different to identify the models. But I
am pretty sure that in most cases it is possible for the backend to
identify the devices. And this will be much better than a XML config
file.

When it is not possible for the backend to find out the exact device it
could try the known devices to find out what model it is and store the
result in an own file (or put it into an advanced sane option that is
stored by the frontend in the devices preferences file), so it knows
next time what device it should test at first.

And for the cases it really is necessary to tweak any config files I
think it is more important to define and create a SANE-package internal
configuration program than to define how the config files look like.

Oliver


Am Mit, 2005-02-23 um 21.35 schrieb Sergey Vlasov:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 08:36:44PM +0100, Oliver Rauch wrote:
> > It is dangerous when a setup program or an unexperienced user is
> > changing the config file. For supported scanners it generally is not
> > necessary to change anything in the config file.
> > 
> > I suggest to discuss how we can make the sane-backends work without any
> > config file changes. The first versions of SANE did work out of the box
> > for supported devices. There is no need for tweaking config files. 
> 
> Unfortunately there are stupid devices out there.  Look at the "usb
> 0x05d8 0x4002" entry in gt68xx.conf for example - there are lots of
> different scanners with the same USB ID, and most of them need
> explicit overrides ("vendor" and "model" are just cosmetic, but
> "override" and "firmware" lines really change things).  In this case
> the config tool would need to get the real scanner model from the user
> and modify the config file appropriately.