-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Ille @ 03/26/2010 02:10 AM: > Le Thu, 25 Mar 2010 23:39:17 -0700, > scar <scar at drigon.com> a ?crit : > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA256 >> >> scar @ 03/23/2010 12:34 PM: >>> surely there is something we can learn from the linux packages >>> mustek provides[1]? >> actually, i am surprised to find that these drivers actually work, >> contrary to what i previously read! guess we should give mustek more >> credit. >> >> i ran a 'make uninstall' for the sane-backends that were currently >> installed. now there was nothing sane* installed on my system. then >> i ran 'sudo dpkg -i --force-architecture libsane_1.0.19-1_i386.deb' >> followed by 'sudo scanimage > test.pnm' and indeed the test.pnm looks >> just fine. >> > > So all you did was changing the Vendor- and ProductID, the y_ and > x_range and the scanner struct, right?
i did not modify anything, nor could i since mustek just provides the binaries. all i did was install mustek's driver, like anyone else might have when they obtain a new piece of hardware. beforehand, i removed the system's installation of libsane package. > >> now, if we could just get this to work with xsane in the meantime and >> perhaps eventually packaged with sane-backends... or with ubuntu's >> libsane package or whatever (if the licensing allows)... >> > > Doesn't it work with xsane? when i try to install xsane, it wants to install libsane, which appears that it might overwrite the drivers installed by mustek's package. i think i will try my earlier suggestion of installing the official libsane, xsane, etc. packages, then copy over the library files from mustek's driver and see how it goes. btw, isn't sane-backends licensed under GPL? how can mustek provide a package without the source? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREIAAYFAkus9/wACgkQXhfCJNu98qDXigCeMiY73UnSRHhK6RHtk94DyG1Z LVUAniitbFNaPOw0otzmZgEOiDGsF8HQ =7jpp -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
