[sane-devel] CanoScan Lide 110 on Ubuntu 10.10

[Kai-Uwe Behrmann]

Am 10.03.2011 01:26, schrieb Warren Turkal:
> What backend does that scanner allegedly use?
>
> wt
>
> On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 7:45 PM, stef <stef.dev at free.fr
> <mailto:stef.dev at free.fr>> wrote:
>
>     Le Wednesday 09 March 2011 16:17:17 Tammo Heeren, vous avez écrit :
>     > If you mean with 'sudo ...'. Yes.
>     >
>     > On Wed, 2011-03-09 at 07:45 -0500, m. allan noah wrote:
>     > > did you try as root?
>     > >
>     > > allan
>     > >
>     > > On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 1:52 AM, Tammo Heeren
>     <home at tammoheeren.com <mailto:home at tammoheeren.com>> wrote:
>     > > > I am really hopping that somebody can help me. I am at a loss.
>     > > > I have a CanoScan Lide 110 on Ubuntu 10.10.
>     > > > sane-find-scanner returns "found USB scanner (vendor=0x04a9
>     [Canon],
>     > > > product=0x1909 [CanoScan], chip=GL124) at libusb:002:005"
>     (which it
>     > > > should) however, scanimage -L just returns the usual "No
>     scanners were
>     > > > identified." scanimage -V returns "scanimage (sane-backends)
>     1.0.23git;
>     > > > backend version 1.0.23". I added myself to all kinds of
>     groups, ran
>     > > > everything with sudo, to know avail. Neither xsane and
>     simplescan work.
>     > > > Can anybody point me in the right direction. I'd really like
>     to get
>     > > > this thing working and be one step further away from windows.
>     > > >
>     > > > Tammo
>     >
>
>            Hello,
>
>            there is no need using latest git version for LiDE 110.
>     Support for this
>     model is complete in SANE 1.0.22. If the release is available in
>     the official
>     package repository, you should use it. If not you might have a look at
>     https://launchpad.net/~robert-ancell/+archive/sane-backends
>     <https://launchpad.net/%7Erobert-ancell/+archive/sane-backends>
>

I have seen similar problems with a simple LIDE20. I needed git in order
to run that scanner on ubuntu 10.04. It was about try and error.
Would'nt it be nice, if scanimage and sane-find-scanner use the same
routines to detect a scanner? Then in case of a conflict, scanimage
could do some further analysis and give more meaningful messages to
users. Users are typical bad at guessing about program internals, me
included ;-)

kind regards,
Kai-Uwe