On 09-Mar-26, at 14:17, Louis Lagendijk wrote: > [...] This could be because the MX850 is not connected on that Lan > (duh)
Yes, the MX850 was connected via USB. > [...] Peter is using an older version of > the pixma code [...]. Yes, because I couldn?t successfully build the 2009-03-24 nightly snapshot. > [...] Peter could try the ethernet interface on his MX850 instead. > Is the > MX850 connected to the network? It was connected by USB. I have tried it connected directly via Ethernet cable (i.e. no hub or switch). I will give the details in a future e-mail. > One last question: is any of the Canon Scangear stuff (see Canon > website) installed? Does that work? The Canon Scangear stuff was installed when I did the testing two days ago: http://members.shaw.ca/schoenrank.ca/sane-scm-2009-03-24/ http://members.shaw.ca/schoenrank.ca/sane-scm-2009-03-24.2/ The Canon Scangear software does work. Of course, the Scangear software doesn?t allow for scanning from the command line, which I would like to be able to do. The Canon Scangear software is not currently installed, and was not installed when I tested earlier today: http://members.shaw.ca/schoenrank.ca/2009-03-26_sane_testing/ On 09-Mar-26, at 14:20, Louis Lagendijk wrote: > One more note: the logfile seems to suggest that opening the device > failed. Was this the case where the process hung and could not be > killed? scanimage -L &> scanimage-L.log always seems to succeed, and finds device `pixma:04A9172C_21B0DA' is a CANON Canon PIXMA MX850 multi- function peripheral scanimage -d pixma:04A9172C_21B0DA -T &> scanimage.log always hangs, always seemingly at the same place, and only rarely can the process be killed. Peter ----- Peter Schoenrank mailto: peter at schoenrank.ca phone: 250-655-6753
