Hi, On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 08:27:55AM -0800, Jonathan Stark wrote: > I see that there are two SANE programs that do nearly the same thing; > scanimage and adfscan. I understand that adfscan was meant > for use with document feeders, but I've found scanimage to be > better suited because of the versatility it provides with > the --batch* features. As such, I've found myself adding the > adfscan features that are missing in scanimage to scanimage > for my own personal use.
Good! > I've created some patches for scanimage that add the --scan-script > feature from adfscan, Ok. Do you use it for saving in a different image format? I don't want to add the --raw option, because that would open SANE for non-SANE compliant frame types. So you convert e.g. from pnm to png? > a new batch-interactive feature that allows you > to handle errors and continue scanning (like if there is a paper jam, > or your adf doesn't hold as many pages as you want included in > a batch job), as well as having a feature to reverse the increment > for doing double sided jobs (front sides first, then back sides). Ok. > Is there someone I can send these patches to who can look them over, > and if appropriate, include them in the cvs tree? If they aren't too big (say <20 KB), send them to the list. Otherwise, put them on a web server or send them to me. Documentation (--help and manpage update) would be nice. > It would seem that after these patches, there are only about 2 features > keeping scanimage from being fully compatible with adfscan. Is there > a reason to have two seperate programs that do nearly the same thing > in the SANE sources? (Just curious...) I think scanadf is older and was seperated from SANE for quite a long time. Maybe the author of the --batch-scan commands didn't know or didn't like it? Bye, Henning
