[sane-devel] sane-find-scanner finds Canon Canoscan N24OU, scanimage -L does not

[Terry Spearman]

Sorry about that last post.  Apparently I accidentally hit "send" before I
intended to.  Corrected and updated post follows:

 

I had it, and I lost it.

 

After BR, Louis wrote:

 

"If /usr/lib64/sane is empty you probbly don;t have
sane-backends-drivers-scanners installed: yum install
sane-backends-drivers-scanners should solve your problem...."

 

I followed his advice, ran "yum install sane-backends-drivers-scanners" and
scanimage -L detected my Canon Canoscan N124OU.  I left things alone for a
couple of weeks, and when I came back to it I'm now back to getting "no
scanners were identified".  (Incidentally, I'm signed on as root).  The only
thing I did in the interim was move my home directory from the SSD, where
Linux lives, to the RAID, which is much bigger.  It's hard to see how that
would effect scanimage, but what do I know? FWIW, I'm pretty sure I got all
the hidden files, etc, moved to the new location and got all the ownership
and permissions the same as they were in the old location, which I have not
deleted.

 

I've more recently discovered that rebooting the server and logging in
either as root or with my usual login and then typing "scanimage -L" gives
me, after a very long time, "device 'plustek:libusb:001:002 is a Canon
CanoScan N1240U/LiDE30 flatbed scanner".  

However, typing "scanimage -L" a second or third time gives me:

"no scanners were identified. If you were expecting something different,
check that the scanner is plugged in, turned on  and detected by the
sane-find-scanner tool (if appropriate).  Please read the documentation
which came with this software (README, FAQ, manpages)."

 

sane-find-scanner still gives me:

found USB scanner (vendor=0x04a5 [Canon], product=0x220e [Canoscan] ) at
libusb:001:002

regardless of whether it's the first run after rebooting or subsequent runs

 

This observation scanimage -L gives different results on the first run after
rebooting and subsequent runs may well account for the difference between
the results I got immediately after installing
sane-backends-drivers-scanners and those I saw more recently, with the
business about moving my home directory being a red herring.

 

I'm currently doing some additional work comparing output of scanimage-L on
first and subsequent runs after rebooting and setting environment variables 

SANE_DEBUG_DLL=128 and 

SANE_DEBUG_PLUSTEK=128

and will post the results once obtained

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/sane-devel/attachments/20181118/5683826d/attachment.html>