Am Mit, 2005-02-23 um 20.59 schrieb m. allan noah: > most respectfully oliver, i disagree. perhaps your points about scanner > damage, etc are true in your backend because of models of scanners that > you support, but for my backend, it is far more likely that there is an > odd variation on the scanner that the backend does not know about, but > works just like an existing model.
That also is true for some umax scanners. But I still think that the backend author(s) should care about that. > hence, the vendors have scanner tools that attempt to modify the dll.conf > to only load the right backends.one could make a strong case for finding > ways to do more in hotplug, instead of via such manual tools, and > it would seem that a very clear mapping between scanner models and > backends is the best way to do this. two different vendor representatives > have told us that the current conf/desc setup is not cutting it. What the linux distribution vendors try is to create a workaround for the bad situation in the moment. This does not mean that it is the best approach. I think SANE should work out of the box without tweaking config files. It is ok to add something like /dev/usb/xyz behaves like "Model 872" to the config file, but we do not need XML or other things for this. It is a good idea to make the config files a bit more uniform, but the discussion goes into the wrong direction in the moment. Oliver
