On Sun 04 Oct 2020 at 22:28:23 +0200, Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote:
> Hello Brian, > > > thanks for your hint. > > Like Olaf Meeuwissen I am of the opinion that sane-airscan is best integrated > into sane. This has been communicated to the upstream author on 11.07.2020. > > Unfortunately this is not yet done and, what is even more important for me, > the > mentioned bugs are not yet solved. > > I refer to [1]. > > So I think that I do not set sane-airscan as recommended package at the > moment. > > > [1] https://gitlab.com/sane-project/backends/-/issues/202 Hello Jörg, I have read through the posts at Issue 202 a couple of times. What I take away from what Olaf Meeuwissen said is that adding sane-airscan as a separate project rather than including it in sane-backends would be acceptable. Both he and Alexander Pevzner also seem to agree that managing sane-airscan on GitHub and setting up a repository read-only SANE mirror is an appropriate approach. I am neither a coder nor a packager, but having sane-airscan as a recommended package doesn't appear to be too dissimilar to both the ideas above. I was also taken by Olaf Meeuwissen's comment that users typically don't care about what backend is used as long as it works. Yes, I am disappointed with the decision, but take heart when you say "...at the moment." There is still time to get it in before the freeze :). Thank you for your consideration and the explanations. Regards, Brian.
