On Mon, 13 Oct 2003, Henning Meier-Geinitz wrote:
>Maybe something is wrong with pthread_cancel()?
>
>Ok, the reason seems to be the blocking of all signals but sigterm in
>test.c. It works, if I don't do this. Maybe pthread_cancel() uses one
>of those signals?
>
>I guess we don't need to block the
On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Henning Meier-Geinitz wrote:
>And to avoid any misconceptions: I'm neither the list maintainer nor
>the inventor of SANE but simply know about how SANE works in general a
>little bit :-)
And you announce releases and timetables, which just might lead to people
perceiving you a
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Gerfried Maier wrote:
>[...]
>/* Structure large enough to hold any socket address (with the historical
> exception of AF_UNIX). We reserve 128 bytes. */
>#if ULONG_MAX > 0x
># define __ss_aligntype __uint64_t
>#else
># define __ss_aligntype __uint32_t
>#endif
>#defi
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Gerfried Maier wrote:
>Erik Inge Bolsø wrote:
>
>>Can you check in your config.h post-configure if "SANED_USES_AF_INDEP" is
>>defined or undefined?
>[...]
>
>so finally, SANED_USES_AF_INDEP should be defined.
Okay.
Ah. I think I found
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Gerfried Maier wrote:
>Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>>On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 09:42:19AM +0200, Gerfried Maier wrote:
>>>saned.c: In function `check_host':
>>>saned.c:559: structure has no member named `ss_family'
>>>saned.c:562: warning: unreachable code at beginning of switch
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002, Henning Meier-Geinitz wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:18:10PM +0300, Sergey Vlasov wrote:
>> I have added support for 16bpp mode in xscanimage (in standalone mode,
>> don't know if the current Gimp version supports more than 8 bits per
>> channel).
>
>I don't think so.
Nope
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Major A wrote:
>> > ccc -o scanimage scanimage.o stiff.o ../backend/.libs/libsane.a -ldl
>> > ../lib/liblib.a -lnsl -lm -ljpeg
>> > /usr/lib/compaq/ccc-6.2.9.002-2/alpha-linux/bin/ld: scanimage: Not enough
>> > room for program headers (allocated 6, need 7)
>> > /usr/lib/com
On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, abel deuring wrote:
>christoph bier wrote:
>> scsi0 : Adaptec AHA274x/284x/294x (EISA/VLB/PCI-Fast SCSI) 5.1.33/3.2.4
>>
>> scsi : 1 host.
>> Vendor: Model: *M"À1/43/41/2Ã Rev:
>> Type: Sequential-Access ANSI SCSI revis
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Patrick S. Leung wrote:
Uhm...
>Host: scsi2 Channel: 00 Id: 00 Lun: 00
> Vendor: FUJITSU Model: MHF2043ATRev:
> Type: Direct-AccessANSI SCSI revision: 02
>Host: scsi2 Channel: 00 Id: 00 Lun: 00
> Vendor: Model: Scanner V6USLRev: 1
On 1 Mar 2002, Hubert Figuiere wrote:
>On Fri, 2002-03-01 at 12:49, Oliver Rauch wrote:
>Hallo Oliver
>> you have 5 devices on this scsi controller.
>> How long are the scsi cables if you add all length?
>> Is the controller a fast or an ultra scsi chipset?
>
>Fast SCSI. For the length, I'll try to
On Mon, 25 Feb 2002, Oliver Rauch wrote:
>Henning Meier-Geinitz wrote:
>> Are they really relevant any more? Even the oldest box I could find
>> (SuSE system from 1997, kernel 2.0.3x) had only /dev/sg0...7 and no
>> /dev/sga etc. I remember that some systems had symlinks sga --> sg0
>> but how old
On Wed, 21 Nov 2001, Colin Walters wrote:
>Henning Meier-Geinitz writes:
>>> +/* FIXME: Is this really what we want? I don't think other
>>> + architectures have parallel ports... */
>>
>> If this is true, it would make life much easier.
>
>I really don't know. Alpha hardware might have a para
12 matches
Mail list logo
