Hi,
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 10:42:09PM +0200, Julien TIERNY wrote:
> here's my sane-find-scanner's output:
> found USB scanner (vendor=0x03f0, product=0x0a01, chip=GL646_HP?) at
> libusb:005:002
Ah, nice. Thanks.
> which is quite expectable since I entered manually my scanner's ids in
> gen
* Julien BLACHE [2004-04-01 14:03:20 +0200]:
> Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>
> >> Read the output of the configure script, that's its purpose.
> >
> > Is it reliably machine readable ?
> > Does it print out, which files will be generated an which dependencies
> > the built package has ?
>
> That's
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>> Read the output of the configure script, that's its purpose.
>
> Is it reliably machine readable ?
> Does it print out, which files will be generated an which dependencies
> the built package has ?
That's the job of the maintainer.
JB.
--
Julien BLACHE
* Julien BLACHE [2004-03-31 12:46:26 +0200]:
> Enrico Weigelt wrote:
>
> > it is generally a bad idea if the user has no control over the build
> > process.
> > perhaps for self-compiling users it doesn't matter very much, but for
> > packaging it's really essential to know exactly what gets
Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> it is generally a bad idea if the user has no control over the build process.
> perhaps for self-compiling users it doesn't matter very much, but for
> packaging it's really essential to know exactly what gets in and what
> comes out of the build process.
Read the outpu
Thank everyone of you for your enthusiastic and rapid help ... but I didn't=
=20
want to launch any troll ;-)
as for my libusb issue, it was my fault: i'm a gentoo linux user and I didn=
't=20
know the existence of a usb flag (needed to compile optional usb support).
Henning:
here's my sane-find-
* Henning Meier-Geinitz [2004-03-30 20:13:29 +0200]:
> We only use autoconf (and autoheader, aclocal) to generate configure
> from configure.in and acinclude.m4 and to generate
> include/sane/config.h forom config.h.in.
well, than just autoconf - where's the difference ?! ;-)
> Do all bourne-s
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 07:41:46PM +, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> it is generally a bad idea if the user has no control over the build process.
> perhaps for self-compiling users it doesn't matter very much, but for
> packaging it's really essential to know exactly what gets in and what
> co
* Henning Meier-Geinitz [2004-03-30 19:03:58 +0200]:
> > > libusb and it's header file must be present when configure is run.
> > > Usually the missing header file causes that trouble.
> > yes, but that's very confusing.
>
> Really? I think that's the default behaviour for optional libraries.
i
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 06:49:19PM +, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> > libusb and it's header file must be present when configure is run.
> > Usually the missing header file causes that trouble.
> yes, but that's very confusing.
Really? I think that's the default behaviour for optional libraries
* Henning Meier-Geinitz [2004-03-30 18:42:01 +0200]:
> libusb and it's header file must be present when configure is run.
> Usually the missing header file causes that trouble.
yes, but that's very confusing.
better introduce a --enable-libusb configure option, which will check for
libusb and
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 09:46:38AM +0200, Julien TIERNY wrote:
> I have a HP2400 scanjet scanner (USB) and I've just patched the sane
> source
> code with the genesys backend for test purpose. Everythinng went fine at
> compilation time.
> but here's sane-find-scanner's output:
hi all,
I have a HP2400 scanjet scanner (USB) and I've just patched the sane
source
code with the genesys backend for test purpose. Everythinng went fine at
compilation time.
but here's sane-find-scanner's output:
"
searching for SCSI scanners:
checking /dev/scanner... failed t
13 matches
Mail list logo
