On Thu, 14 Dec 2006 15:18:41 -0500 (EST) "m. allan noah" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > >> I'd like to hear/read some more opinions on that. > >> Any? > > i would vote for re-openning the discussion of SANE2, and begin a project > to port a limited number of backends forward. use a whole new SONAME, such > that sane1 and 2 libs can co-exist for awhile. many backends will never be > ported to sane2, because the scanners have not been made in 10+ years, and > there is no-one to do it. I agree, but propose to re-open only after a number of developers a really interested in writing code. > 4. inconsistent option names and arguments between backends. > 5. inconsistent gamma/brightness/contrast implementations (sanei_gamma > i have been playing with here) > 8. inconsistent debug levels. not that big of a deal i guess. i would > rather that they were a bitmask instead of a linear progression. those 3 items are quite important imho. -- Best regards, Alessandro Zummo, Tower Technologies - Turin, Italy http://www.towertech.it
