Hi, On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 07:21:13PM +0100, Major A wrote: > Just a quick thought -- if the dc240 is a driver for a digital camera, > why is it necessary to have a SANE backend for it anyway? If it's > supported by gphoto(2), that should be sufficient. May I suggest we > make compilation optional, with an --enable-dc240 switch?
In my opinion we should avoid disabling backend by default whenever we can. Two backends are already disabled by default: pnm (for security reasons) and gphoto2 (gphoto2 api changing). So dc240 should be only disabled if it can't be compiled. I don't think disabling it (or any other backend) because it's supported ba another backend or program is reasonable if it doesn't harm anything else. Bye, Henning
