Gary Winiger wrote: >> 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. > > I'm looking for dependences here. In one hand we have > a stalled case that seems to have overlap. > >>>> 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. > > Because you put removable stuff in it and remove the stuff when > done. Solaris Object Reuse needs to be supported.
Consider that if I grab the libsane source and compile and built all as a normal user; I need no privileges to access the scanner because logindevperm already gave me as the console user ownership of the device nodes. So best I can tell there is nothing this case, it just provides library, can do to change this. How is it different to pilot-xfer or gphoto or any of the other libusb consumers ? I just don't see what the issue is with this case. If there is an object reuse issue then the issue is with logindevperm giving out access to all the ugen provided devices as a user logs in. -- Darren J Moffat
