Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
Hi,
> I just found another use case for that on-line ID to backend/driver
> mapping I mentioned in my earlier post: tallying device IDs.
Sure, though not everybody has a permanent network connection.
>> Given the shortage of manpower SANE is facing, it's valuable info t
Julien BLACHE writes:
> Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
>
>>> If we add this wildcard, we'll never complete this mapping, which I
>>> think has some value in itself.
>>
>> The value of the mapping depends on the use case, IMHO.
>
> There's something else I haven't mentioned. Every time we get such a
> re
Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
Hi,
> If, however, you interpret the mapping as a scanner H/W interface to ID
> (and back) mapping, then of course your argument holds. Or am I reading
> too much in your "<->" and incorrectly assumed a 1:1 mapping from that?
Yeah, the 1:1 mapping between IDs and model n
Julien BLACHE writes:
> Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:
>
>> Hmm, I think we could use a wild card here, like so
>>
>> ATTRS{type}=="3", ATTRS{vendor}=="EPSON", ATTRS{model}="SCANNER*"
>>
>> and be done with. WDYT?
>
> As it is right now, we have a scanner <-> IDs mapping in the desc files,
> and it c
