[sane-devel] sane-backends release 1.0.26 schedule

[m. allan noah]

On Sat, May 6, 2017 at 5:52 AM, Louis Lagendijk <louis at fazant.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 2017-04-28 at 08:04 -0400, m. allan noah wrote:
>> Ok folks, it's time to get another sane-backends release out the
>> door.
>>
>> Olaf has done a good job of cleaning up our contributors list and
>> curating the bug tracker. However, there are a handful of patches in
>> the bug tracker that could still be applied, once they are reviewed.
>> Also, quite a number of backends that are now unmaintained. So, this
>> is a good time to get involved with sane. If you benefit from this
>> project, and have some programming experience, we could use the help.
>>
>> Schedule:
>>
>> May 7: Feature freeze (only fix bugs and update docs after this date)
>> May 14: Code freeze (only update docs after this date)
>> May 21: Release
>>
>
> Hi,
> Yesterday when I had a look at our bug tracker for any issues in my
> code I found https://alioth.debian.org/tracker/?func=detail&group_id=30
> 186&aid=315004&atid=410366
> This is an issue for scanbd integration that requires more flexibility
> for configuration of dll-loading: when scanbd is used users need to use
>  the net backend only, but scanbd/saned need to be fed with the
> "normal" list of backends.
> I made a patch to dll.c where
> - It used the dll.conf with the name pointed out by env. var
> SANE_CONFIG_FILE if defined, if not
> - it tries to load a dll2.conf if it exists. This is meant to be a file
> dropped in thre sane config dir by scanbd. If that does not exist
> - it follows the existing code path.
>
> I added a #include statement in the config file so dll2.conf can
> include dll.conf if so required.
>
> I am in the process of testing and cleaningup. but my question is:
> should I commit this change so close to the freeze date? Documentation
> is still to be done, but I would still have 2 weeks for that.
> Alan, what do you think?
>

I don't now recall the entire discussion around the guts of scanbd's
implementation, but you description sounds a little odd to me.

1. If dll2.conf is created by scanbd, and scanbd is not running, and
the user uses scanimage or another frontend, he will unknowingly load
dll2.conf first. Even if dll2.conf #includes dll.conf, it is still a
behavior change.
2. Do you not also need changes to saned to make this work? That
seemed to be the case in the earlier discussion.
3. I think I would prefer a more clear name than dll2.conf, but I
cannot think of one :)

allan

-- 
"well, I stand up next to a mountain- and I chop it down with the edge
of my hand"