Hello everyone,
I have a questions:
1. why in /usr/lib/sane has 2 files (ie: libsane-sm3600.so.1 ,
libsane-sm3600.so.1.0.17) as i know that libsane-sm3600.so.1 is symbolic link
to libsane-sm3600.so.1.0.17, but why in /usr/local/lib/sane has 4 files (ie:
libsane-sm3600.la , libsane-sm3600.so , libsane-sm3600.so.1 ,
libsane-sm3600.so.1.0.17) ? why not only one file libsane-sm3600.so.1.0.17
files to let xsane to link to this driver ?
2. because I am still new for linux filesystem hierarchy , so i just want to
know that my linux fc5, have installed sane backend from it's fc5 dvd distro,
but there is no source code to debug. so I downloaded from sane-project
website, the source of sane-backend, and then I build and installed in default
directory /usr/local/lib/sane, and then the questions is why the source not
default to /usr/lib/sane directory? Is there any different between
/usr/local/lib/sane and /usr/lib/sane directory ?
any assistance or englightment would be appreciated
Thank you
Sincerely,
Sofian
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+
countries) for 2?/min or less.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/sane-devel/attachments/20060518/226aebc4/attachment.htm
From [email protected] Fri May 19 11:56:18 2006
From: [email protected] (=?iso-8859-15?q?St=E9phane_VOLTZ?=)
Date: Fri May 19 11:57:12 2006
Subject: [sane-devel] Lexmark experimental backend
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Hello,
I have just committed a new version of the experimental/lexmark
backend. From
the current regular backend it brings:
- arbitrary scanarea selection
- gain calibration
- offset calibration
- software shading calibration
- Dell A920 support
- infrastructure for adding more models
I believe the experimental is in good shape to get into regular CVS.
However,
while I took care of not altering X1100 support, and since I don't have such
a model to test, there may be bugs for this model. So it needs testing.
For A920 1200 dpi scan is disabled, since it does 1200x600, and so
needs
to "inflate" lines to match 1200x1200. Which is a little tricky since the
data copying expects even/odd columns interleaved.
Last issue is shading calibration. This scanner has no hardware shading
calibration, and it has to be done in software. The current correction
implementation gives good results, but shows deficiency in dark areas. The
trouble is due to the fact that correction depends of the sensor element that
corresponds to the scanned column, but also slightly depends on his
neighbours in a way I couldn't figure out. Someone more clever than me will
have to find it.
Pictures given "out of the box" are correct, and with little tweaking
of
gamma and light from the frontend, one can have good scans.
Regards,
Stef
