> I actually tried the SWIG bindings but I found them problematic to build on > one of my dev boxes and I didn't really have time to spend on working out > why (sorry!).
Same here! I think it has something to do with make somehow failing to generate the pyfprint_swig.c file with swig, and then tripping over that? Automake is slightly (!) annoying to debug, I'll try to take another look later. I would fully support the idea of a single set of bindings and would be > prepared to help with them. Great! > From my own point of view I have to support the AES1610, that is the only > focus of my Python binding and I'm already making changes to the libfprint > codebase that probably wouldn't make it in upstream (I've noted the way I > fixed a bug in the bug reports, I've attached my simplest patch here as well > as I can't seem to upload it to Flyspray). I am, of course, happy (and > bound) to share my work. For the record, the AES1610 device is insanely > small and it is hard to get the same portion of your finger to swipe across > the surface on two consecutive occasions - in our testing it has proven to > be very difficult for end users to use it correctly and I would recommend > that if you have any choice you do not try and use this device in a serious > application. This is funny, I've been working on the exact same device. I guess it's popular since it's cheaper than its counterparts or something. Some tips: I've been working with the device out of the laptop enclosure, with a usb cable soldered on. It seems to be harder to make it enroll or verify properly when it's out of the enclosure, since the plastic curved dent that guides your finger is not there. It's a bit more consistent otherwise. Also, people with relatively drier skin like me have a harder time getting the reader to detect their finger properly. The hackish solution: lick your finger! ~ Mehmet Ali Akmanalp
_______________________________________________ fprint mailing list [email protected] http://lists.reactivated.net/mailman/listinfo/fprint
