[sane-devel] SANE 1.1.0 Release discussion

On Thu, 08 May 2008 22:33:01 +0200 Julien BLACHE wrote: > Alessandro Zummo wrote: > > > portability makes a lot of sense. constraining ourselves to things > > that are decades older does not. > > There's no reason to leave users out in the cold when it doesn't cost > us anything to support t

[sane-devel] SANE 1.1.0 Release discussion

Alessandro Zummo wrote: > portability makes a lot of sense. constraining ourselves to things > that are decades older does not. There's no reason to leave users out in the cold when it doesn't cost us anything to support them. We only have to not break the existing code. JB. -- Julien BLACH

[sane-devel] SANE 1.1.0 Release discussion

On Thu, 08 May 2008 22:07:40 +0200 Julien BLACHE wrote: > > proprietary unices can't use gcc or another C99 compiler? > > Which unix in particular? > > Pretty much all of them ship compilers that do not implement C99 or do > not implement all of it yet. Moreover, we're speaking of systems that

[sane-devel] SANE 1.1.0 Release discussion

Alessandro Zummo wrote: > proprietary unices can't use gcc or another C99 compiler? > Which unix in particular? Pretty much all of them ship compilers that do not implement C99 or do not implement all of it yet. Moreover, we're speaking of systems that often do not get updated for a variety of

[sane-devel] SANE 1.1.0 Release discussion

On Thu, 08 May 2008 19:13:39 +0200 Julien BLACHE wrote: > Alessandro Zummo wrote: > > > if there are standard and equivalent types, we should use them. > > iirc some of them were added with C99. Given we are now > > in 2008 we might start supporting C99 :-D > > Will break proprietary Unices

[sane-devel] [RFC] SANE 1.1.0 Remove linux kernel scanner.o support

On 5/8/08, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote: > Julien BLACHE writes: > > > "m. allan noah" wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > >> Now that distros have gotten udev under control, and users are > >> learning to modify it, we have seen cases where a person made their > >> scanner show up as /dev/scanner. This ca

[sane-devel] SANE 1.1.0 Debug Levels

On 5/8/08, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote: > "m. allan noah" writes: > > > Ok- how about we start a separate thread for each major topic that > > needs discussing... > > > > Olaf has suggested that we split image data off into a different > > level. So I've gotten rid of the calibration level. These

[sane-devel] SANE 1.1.0 Release discussion

Alessandro Zummo wrote: > if there are standard and equivalent types, we should use them. > iirc some of them were added with C99. Given we are now > in 2008 we might start supporting C99 :-D Will break proprietary Unices. JB. -- Julien BLACHE

[sane-devel] [RFC] SANE 1.1.0 Remove linux kernel scanner.o support

Alessandro Zummo wrote: > I'm pretty sure libusb is supported under BSD and windows. Don't know, > and probably it is not, under OS/2 and Beos. After some recent work on the USB code in sanei, I was under the impression that one of the BSD did not have libusb. Might be due to an outdated comme

[sane-devel] SANE 1.1.0 Release discussion

On Thu, 08 May 2008 14:19:38 +0200 CEST "Fran?ois Revol" wrote: > > On 5/6/08, > > IIRC some non-standard (linux specific) types were used (u_int8_t ?) in > place of standard ones, without even including the correct headers, so > I had to fix many backends. > That might not only affect BeOS bt

[sane-devel] SANE 1.1.0 Release discussion

On Thu, 8 May 2008 08:24:37 -0400 "m. allan noah" wrote: > > > > > > :) libusb is probably used in 90% of the user base.. shouldn't be a > > problem, > > unless someone is really using a 2.4 kernel with /dev/scanner > > typical linux developer response :) sane builds on alot of other > syste

[sane-devel] [RFC] SANE 1.1.0 Remove linux kernel scanner.o support

> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Julien BLACHE wrote: > > "m. allan noah" wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > Now that distros have gotten udev under control, and users are > > > learning to modify it, we have seen cases where a person made > > > their > > > scanner show up as /dev/scanner. Th

[sane-devel] SANE 1.1.0 Release discussion

> > > > > > :) libusb is probably used in 90% of the user base.. > > shouldn't be a problem, > > unless someone is really using a 2.4 kernel with /dev/scanner > > typical linux developer response :) sane builds on alot of other > systems- e.g. the OSX libusb names are really long GUID-looking

[sane-devel] [RFC] SANE 1.1.0 Remove linux kernel scanner.o support

On Thu, 8 May 2008 10:33:21 -0400 "m. allan noah" wrote: > > It's well past time. 2.6.3 is no longer history, it's archeology > > now... :) > > > > Ok, but what about the 4 bsd variants and beos that also seem to use > it? Are they all using libusb now? I'm pretty sure libusb is supported un

[sane-devel] [RFC] SANE 1.1.0 Remove linux kernel scanner.o support

"m. allan noah" wrote: > Ok, but what about the 4 bsd variants and beos that also seem to use > it? Are they all using libusb now? I think it's not the same interface, though the node name is the same. Not sure, though. If we have BSD people around, now would be a good time to wake up ;) JB.

[sane-devel] [RFC] SANE 1.1.0 Remove linux kernel scanner.o support

"m. allan noah" wrote: Hi, > Now that distros have gotten udev under control, and users are > learning to modify it, we have seen cases where a person made their > scanner show up as /dev/scanner. This causes sanei_usb to try and talk > to it like it uses the old kernel scanner module. how about

[sane-devel] [RFC] SANE 1.1.0 Remove linux kernel scanner.o support

On Thu, 8 May 2008 15:00:29 +0200 Gerhard Jaeger wrote: > > while we are there.. there is plustek-pp_ptdrv.c that > > even has an embedded kernel driver ... > > so what? The code ist also able to run completely in user-mode! > yes, I know. I just don't think it belongs there and all those

[sane-devel] [RFC] SANE 1.1.0 Remove linux kernel scanner.o support

On Thursday 08 May 2008 14:52:05 Alessandro Zummo wrote: > On Thu, 8 May 2008 08:28:14 -0400 > "m. allan noah" wrote: > > > Now that distros have gotten udev under control, and users are > > learning to modify it, we have seen cases where a person made their > > scanner show up as /dev/scanner. T

[sane-devel] [RFC] SANE 1.1.0 Remove linux kernel scanner.o support

On Thu, 8 May 2008 08:28:14 -0400 "m. allan noah" wrote: > Now that distros have gotten udev under control, and users are > learning to modify it, we have seen cases where a person made their > scanner show up as /dev/scanner. This causes sanei_usb to try and talk > to it like it uses the old ker

[sane-devel] SANE 1.1.0 Release discussion

> On 5/6/08, ?tienne Bersac wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Thanks alan fo this post. I agree with everything on you list. > > Just add > > something : would it be possible to just "ensure" that all usb > > scanner > > backends support libusb:xxx:yyy as "fallback" device name ? > > i think we can do

[sane-devel] SANE 1.1.0 Release discussion

On Thu, 08 May 2008 13:56:45 +0200 Julien BLACHE wrote: > "m. allan noah" wrote: > > Hi, > > > still not sure how to document that requirement for the front-end > > author, because those device names will vary quite a bit between > > platforms... > > "Use the device name returned by the backe

[sane-devel] [RFC] SANE 1.1.0 indentation

I noticed that while the sane specs specify an indentation style for the code, this has been a bit overlooked by the different authors Shall we remove that spec or run the code base thru indent -gnu? I hate having a two space tab (prefer 8), but a coherent code base makes easier to work o

[sane-devel] SANE 1.1.0 Release discussion

"m. allan noah" wrote: Hi, > still not sure how to document that requirement for the front-end > author, because those device names will vary quite a bit between > platforms... "Use the device name returned by the backend unless you know damn well what you are doing". There, done. ;) JB. --

[sane-devel] [RFC] SANE 1.1.0 Remove linux kernel scanner.o support

> "m. allan noah" wrote: > > > Ok, but what about the 4 bsd variants and beos that also seem to use > > it? Are they all using libusb now? > > I think it's not the same interface, though the node name is the > same. Not sure, though. > > If we have BSD people around, now would be a good time to

[sane-devel] SANE 1.1.0 Release discussion

On Thu, 08 May 2008 09:29:09 +0900 Olaf Meeuwissen wrote: > > don't know yet. I still have to check epkowa code then Olaf and I could > > maybe discuss the thing in order to have similar behaviours. > > The information is returned as part of the status (see ESC f, FS F). > I was thinking along

[sane-devel] Fwd: [RFC] SANE 1.1.0 Remove linux kernel scanner.o support

oops= forgot to include mailing list... allan On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Julien BLACHE wrote: > "m. allan noah" wrote: > > > > Ok, but what about the 4 bsd variants and beos that also seem to use > > it? Are they all using libusb now? > > I think it's not the same interface, thou

[sane-devel] [RFC] SANE 1.1.0 Remove linux kernel scanner.o support

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Julien BLACHE wrote: > "m. allan noah" wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Now that distros have gotten udev under control, and users are > > learning to modify it, we have seen cases where a person made their > > scanner show up as /dev/scanner. This causes sanei_usb to tr

[sane-devel] SANE 1.1.0 Release discussion

Alessandro Zummo writes: > On Wed, 07 May 2008 11:58:52 +0200 > ?tienne Bersac wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> So you mean an hardware selected option that can be read after the >> scan ? Sounds good ! > > don't know yet. I still have to check epkowa code then Olaf and I could > maybe discuss the thing

[sane-devel] [RFC] SANE 1.1.0 Remove linux kernel scanner.o support

Now that distros have gotten udev under control, and users are learning to modify it, we have seen cases where a person made their scanner show up as /dev/scanner. This causes sanei_usb to try and talk to it like it uses the old kernel scanner module. how about we remove that code finally? allan -

[sane-devel] SANE 1.1.0 Release discussion

On 5/8/08, Alessandro Zummo wrote: > On Thu, 08 May 2008 13:56:45 +0200 > > Julien BLACHE wrote: > > > > "m. allan noah" wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > still not sure how to document that requirement for the front-end > > > author, because those device names will vary quite a bit between > >

[sane-devel] [RFC] SANE 1.1.0 indentation

On 5/8/08, Alessandro Zummo wrote: > > > I noticed that while the sane specs specify an indentation style for > the code, this has been a bit overlooked by the different authors > > Shall we remove that spec or run the code base > thru indent -gnu? > > I hate having a two space tab (pref

[sane-devel] SANE 1.1.0 Release discussion

On 5/6/08, ?tienne Bersac wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks alan fo this post. I agree with everything on you list. Just add > something : would it be possible to just "ensure" that all usb scanner > backends support libusb:xxx:yyy as "fallback" device name ? i think we can do that, but write it in a mo

[sane-devel] SANE 1.1.0 Debug Levels

Ok- how about we start a separate thread for each major topic that needs discussing... Olaf has suggested that we split image data off into a different level. So I've gotten rid of the calibration level. These may not match what you guys need for your backends, so please make suggestions 1 DB

[sane-devel] SANE 1.1.0 Release discussion

On 5/7/08, ?tienne Bersac wrote: > Hi, > > > > it is something > > that should be considered when the need arises, in order to not > > have the same situation we had with the options that we are now > > going to standardize. > > > +1000 :) > > Please provide a "well-known" DTD :) this is