Got it. Bastien Nocera <[email protected]> schrieb am Do., 17. Sep. 2020, 16:04:
> On Thu, 2020-09-17 at 15:38 +0200, Jörn-Ingo Weigert wrote: > > Hi Bastian,nice idea. As SANE is already network capable to provide > > connected scanners to the network, > > (simply a network device) it make not really sense, to provide > > sane(d) via Flatpak in my eyes. > > I have no plans on running saned inside the sandbox. It's about running > a server on the outside of the sandbox, talking to the real hardware, > so that applications don't need direct hardware access. > > > however, having SANE-based applications like XSane/ scan-image as > > Flatpak version, maybe a nice idea. > > Most of them are blocking on having a scanner portal, which is what > this is about. For example: > https://github.com/flathub/flathub/pull/1111 > > And paperwork needs access to all the devices, and ship its own sane- > backends, which means it only works with the scanners supported by > sane-backends: > https://github.com/flathub/work.openpaper.Paperwork > > > But for this you don't need to modify saned. ... > > You need to, if you don't want saned listening on the network, being > auto-activatable, and being able to add a portal/proxy in between so > that scanner access is a changeable permission. > > We can't easily filter network calls, and most scanner apps don't need > network access, so giving them network access opens the sandbox for no > good reason. > > > Or do I miss here something? > > > >
