[sane-devel] Device recognition

[Olaf Meeuwissen]

Julien BLACHE <jb at jblache.org> writes:

> Olaf Meeuwissen <olaf.meeuwissen at avasys.jp> wrote:
>
>>> If we add this wildcard, we'll never complete this mapping, which I
>>> think has some value in itself.
>>
>> The value of the mapping depends on the use case, IMHO.
>
> There's something else I haven't mentioned. Every time we get such a
> report, we know there is someone somewhere using that hardware.

I just found another use case for that on-line  ID to backend/driver
mapping I mentioned in my earlier post: tallying device IDs.

> Given the shortage of manpower SANE is facing, it's valuable info too.

Indeed.  It gives you an idea of what still needs to be done and what
will have the most impact.

> SANE has grown too big, backends have grown too complex and the API
> ... we've discussed it to death.

SANE API RIP?

>> In fact, a SCSI device with ATTRS{type} == "6" already is a kind of
>> wildcard and no-one has any qualms about that being in libsane.rules.
>
> It's true we've got that one already so another wildcard here won't
> matter much. Oh well. I'll commit the change :)

Thanks!

>> # Here's me wishing USB had a scanner class ... :-(
>
> ISTR it was part of the USB spec at some point.

I seem to remember something close, seeing it in a USB *draft* spec.

>> The more scanners Just Work out-of-the-box the
>
> What follows is by no means directed to you personally. Now, ...

I know, but that doesn't mean I don't cringe ;-)

> Manufacturers want their scanner supported out of the box? Fine! Me too!
>
> Open your specs. Write drivers. Don't put out crappy closed-source
> drivers, be them SANE backends or TWAIN abominations.
>
> For years, I've been trying to reach out to the problematic
> manufacturers on occasion and so did others. Nothing came out of this
> because they have their heads so far up their bottoms.
>
> I'm truly fed up with that. I don't want to read any more rants from
> manufacturers about this. It's past time for them to put up or shut up,
> the rules about this have been laid out eons ago already.
>
> Recently, I've been in touch with the TWAIN WG as they were looking at
> integrating TWAIN into Linux distributions and got in touch with Debian
> (among others, I guess).
>
> I provided guidance, asked questions and pointed out a number of
> potentially deadly technical issues. I'm still waiting for feedback on
> that.
>
> Seriously. We're all ready to help, but we do need some commitment from
> the other side too.

Hope this helps,
-- 
Olaf Meeuwissen, LPIC-2           FLOSS Engineer -- AVASYS CORPORATION
FSF Associate Member #1962               Help support software freedom
                 http://www.fsf.org/jf?referrer=1962