>> >> The problem is with scanner that are
>> I'm not sure where you found assignment of blame in what I wrote.
> "The problem is" is an assignment of technical blame.
I was just pointing out in which circumstances the problem appears.
No blame was meant and when I reread it I don't see blame being
assigned either.
>> Apparently not 100% so since it works if you provide the URI explicitly.
> Most applications do not allow to specify an arbitrary scanner URL.
The fact that you sometimes can, seems a clear indication that the
underlying design still makes it possible: you just need a bit of code
somewhere in SANE so you can specify this URL in a more central place
than on the command line. IOW, a trivial new feature.
> The fact that this option did not exist first and before probing is what
> I call a design mistake.
You're free to do so, but usually "design mistake" refers to a problem
whose consequences can only be addressed properly by a redesign, which
implies a significant rework of the code.
> And the fact that hpaio relies on CUPS is inexcusable.
I don't see why: first, AFAICT it is still fully functional without
CUPS, and the fact that it tries to make use of CUPS's config
information in order to overcome specifically the problem you're in is
not dangerous. It's kind of hackish but I can't see any situation where
it would harm any(think|one), so I'm not sure why you'd find
it inexcusable.
> There is no doubt it can be done. I just doubt it will.
Maybe if you write a patch and submit it along with your
bug-report/feature-request there's more chance it will?
And if you can't do it yourself, why not pay someone to do it for you?
Also, maybe if you stop accusing people of incompetence or gross
negligence (which is what "inexcusable" and "design mistake" evokes for
me), they'll be more accommodating?
Stefan
