m. allan noah wrote: > On 4/3/08, Gerard Klaver <gerard at gkall.hobby.nl> wrote: > >> On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 14:56 +0200, Ralph D. Ungermann wrote: >> > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Ralph D. Ungermann wrote: >> > >> >> > >> I'm about to adapt the teco3 backend to the VM6552. >> > >> >> > >> My question: Is there still any public interest in backends for >> > >> such old scanners? >> > >> > >> > m. allan noah wrote: >> > > though there may not be much interest, we will accept patches if you >> > > get it working and it compiles cleanly. we might even make you >> > > maintainer of the code if you are not careful :) >> > >> > >> > My scanner now runs fine! But unfortunately, it turned out to be not a >> > patch, but a major rewrite (with 30% less lines). I presume, that my >> > backend also solves major issues for the other supported scanners, >> > chiefly with color scans and responsiveness (to cancel). But I have no >> > way to test it for other teco models, and I don't want to fool millions >> > of happy teco3 users. >> > >> > If there is anybody else out there using backend teco1, teco2, or teco3, >> > I'm willing to unify and maintain that driver. But now I sit idle, until >> > somebody googles and finds this email... >> > >> > Meanwhile: Anyone here need help coding or reviewing his code? >> > >> > -- ralph >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> Hello Ralph, >> >> I am the maintainer of the teco2 backend, if you have a link (or send a >> zip file with data to mailbox) to your backend i can have a look and add >> improvements to the teco2 backend. >> >> http://gkall.hobby.nl/scanner.html >> >> >> >> PS. Frank Zago is the maintainer for the teco1 and teco3 backend. >> -- >> -------- >> m.vr.gr. >> >> Gerard Klaver >> > > Gerard- Sorry, I thought these backends were all unmaintained. I stand > corrected. > > Can you say how similar the protocol is on all these machines? Is it > reasonable to combine the backends? > No. There is 3 backends for a reason. I could take a look at Ralph's code and make sure it's indeed different than the other scanners. In that case the best solution would be to create a teco4 backend. And since I don't have any scanner left I don't think it's a good idea to patch an existing backend besides fixing obvious bugs.
Regards, Frank.
