On 17/01/2008, John Goerzen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Right. I think I see what is going on now. I'll do some testing and I > > hope I'll have a patch later on. In the mean time, does the scanadf > > frontend (in Edit/Frontend) work? > > > Yes, it does indeed appear to work. Well, it did at least once, so my sample > size isn't that large for this problem that sometimes wasn't present. > > Is there any difference in the resulting output or settings from using one > vs. the other?
scanadf and scanimage both use SANE, and therefore the same backend. The settings and results should therefore be the same. However, it seems that for some scanners, only the one or the other works properly. In your case, the problem is that a couple of versions ago, I started using the --progress option in scanimage (not available in scanadf), and gscan2pdf is not parsing the stderr output correctly because of this, in your case. Regards Jeff -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
