Hi. Strange! If it saves on ~/.fprint, then I should have permissions! Must check this.
Regardinh running with gdm, I never worked with gdb, can you inform what will be the command we must issue to run it in the debugger? About the scan images, I will try to post some images during the weekend. Miguel Quoting Daniel Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > João Miguel Roque wrote: >> This solves the problem for regular users to use the lib, but when >> running pam_fprint_enroll, it scans the finger, but then it can't save >> the file and gives the following error: >> >> Scan your finger now. >> Enroll complete! >> Enrollment completed! >> >> fp:error [fp_print_data_save] couldn't create storage directory >> Data save failed, code -1 >> >> Where is the lib saving the files so that we can change permissions? > > ~/.fprint > >> Other thing is that the scan at least with the AES1610 doesn't have a >> good quality and maybe this is not only with the quality of the sensor, >> but also with the speed one must use when scaning the finger. If you >> scan too slow, it gives a segmentation fault. Don't know the internals >> of the program, but if possible, try to slow a bit the scan so that we >> can avoid this segmentation fault. Other thing could be to add in the >> demo a param that will do that, we the users will check the best speed >> for our sensors and then you could implement that speed in >> pam_fprint_enroll. > > No matter how slow the user scans their finger there should never be a > segfault. Can you run it through gdb and get a backtrace? > > Anthony, can you reproduce this? > > > As for the quality problems, can you elaborate? Do you mean that the > print comparison simply isn't working brilliantly (that's a known issue > for this particular device), or do you mean that the images that come > back actually look bad in the first place? If so, in what way do they > look bad? > > The example images that Anthony posted looked good quality and also > enhanced well too, the issue seems to be that our image processing > doesn't work brilliantly for such small scan images at the moment. > (other sensors see a lot more of the finger) > > I do not have this hardware myself so am not able to directly relate to > any of this. > > Daniel _______________________________________________ fprint mailing list [email protected] http://lists.reactivated.net/mailman/listinfo/fprint
