On 28.02.2015 16:27, Wilhelm wrote: > Am 25.02.2015 um 07:06 schrieb Rolf Leggewie: >> Hello, >> >> I am maintaining scanbd in Debian and found scanbd difficult to >> configure with lots of possible pitfalls. As much as possible I want to >> make it easy and failproof for the ordinary users to install and use >> scanbd OOTB. >> >> One of the things that broke things for me and that were hard to >> troubleshoot (I wrote to this ML about it last year) is that the SANE >> backend configurations need to be present both in /etc/sane.d and >> /etc/scanbd. This is due to the nature scanbd sits on top of SANE. I >> still wonder if scanbd couldn't be made to have an explicit >> SANE_BACKEND_CONFIG_DIR in addition to the SANE_CONFIG_DIR?! That would >> eliminate the need for what I am about to explain. > > What should be the effect of this env-variable SANE_BACKEND_CONFIG_DIR? > > I think it would be best, if the SANE lib would support setting > explicitly the config file (dll.conf) and / or the config dir. > > Then saned could use this and introduced a -c <config-file> and / or > -d<dir> options. And in turn scanbd can make use of this.
I thought I had already replied to this message but I cannot see it in the archive. My apologies if this comes out as a double-post. As maintainer, I currently need to copy all backend files from /etc/sane.d/*.conf to /etc/scanbd. That is messy to say the least. If SANE_BACKEND_CONFIG_DIR was a variable separate from SANE_CONFIG_DIR that wouldn't be necessary with obvious benefits to everyone. I do believe that your suggestion of saned having a -d or -c parameter would likely achieve the same result, alas, we don't have it and it's not clear it will arrive. -- sane-devel mailing list: [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sane-devel Unsubscribe: Send mail with subject "unsubscribe your_password" to [email protected]
