Gary Winiger wrote: >>> Note that Sane and libsane was previously ARC'ed via LSARC >>> >>> http://sac.eng.sun.com/arc/LSARC/2007/018/ > > Just what is the relationship between this case and the sited > LSARC case? Why is the LSARC case listed as a reference?
The LSARC case proposed delivering more. In particular it had a daemon that provided remote scanner access. This case is just the library. >> SANE does not depend on HAL for device access control. > > Why shouldn't it? Isn't it removable media? I don't understand why a scanner would be classed as removable media. Why is it that this case needs to do these things but integration of webcam support, pilot-xter, gphoto etc didn't ? The answer isn't because it was missed it is because they are just end user applications using libusb. This case is JUST an application library (libsane) that runs as the user. As such I don't see how it is any different to any other libusb consumer such as gphoto or gnome-pilot, pilot-xfer. The access control to the libusb provided devices that these libraries and end user programs use is done by the following /etc/logindevperm entry: /dev/console 0600 /dev/usb/[0-9a-f]+[.][0-9a-f]+/[0-9]+/* driver=scsa2usb,usb_mid,usbprn,ugen #libusb/ugen devices If you think that is wrong then the issue is with the whole architecture of libusb and the ugen driver not the architecture of this case. -- Darren J Moffat
