"m. allan noah" <[email protected]> wrote: Hi,
> my only concern there would be if the user sees the name of an > external backend, and assumes it is already installed. also- what I clearly distinguished external backends for this purpose :) > about the case where a backend is installed, but disabled in dll.conf? It's part of the configuration the user will need to do; she'll have to edit the backend config file in some cases too. > are the desc files currently installed anywhere? does it make more No, I don't think so. > sense to roll them up into structs in a .so that we could load? that > reduces the runtime processing, while allowing external backends to > provide additional, smaller files... I'm not sure it makes sense, because parsing the desc files is quite fast. > though honestly, i am not all that sure of the benefit. i mean, if you > run sane-find-scanner and see it, but scanimage -L does not, then the > backend support is missing anyway? It's one more hint for the user -- if scanimage doesn't find the scanner, having the backend name is a good starting point to find out what's wrong (usually, the backend isn't enabled). sane-find-scanner is usually the first tool that is run when plugging in a new scanner; just thought it could help to have a somewhat more knowledgeable sane-find-scanner. JB. -- Julien BLACHE <http://www.jblache.org> <[email protected]> GPG KeyID 0xF5D65169
