...it turns out the appropriate /dev/bus/usb entry is owned by lp.scanner. :/
Hi All, Sorry for the lateness of this report, I don't know how many upgrades of HPLIP and gphoto have gone through since the problem first appeared, it is too many to bother going back and seeing who changed what though. In a nutshell... libgphoto2-2 ships: /etc/udev/rules.d/025_libgphoto2.rules which contains: a few dozen cameras with ATTRS{idVendor}=="03f0" where ATTRS{idProduct} is something ending with "02" hplip ships: /etc/udev/rules.d/55-hpmud.rules which contains: # Check for Photosmart products (0x03f0xx02). SYSFS{idVendor}=="03f0", SYSFS{idProduct}=="??02", OWNER="lp", GROUP="scanner", MODE="0660" ...HPLIP is assuming that all Photosmart products are scanners, which may well be true and correct (if it is not feasible to list individual idProduct's for whatever reason). However, since it does so after libgphoto's rules are read, it messes up access to Photosmart cameras. Simply swapping the order of the two .rules files serves to get Digikam working again--but libgphoto's .rules would need to start setting an OWNER to ensure that camera devices don't end up owned by lp.plugdev! So, afaict: 1) the PhotoTools Maintainers can fix this problem by renaming 025_* to (say) z60_* and adding (perhaps) OWNER="root" to each entry. 2) the HPLIP Maintainers can fix the problem by getting upstream to provide individual idProduct codes (which may or may not require the cooperation of the manufacturer). I don't know which is the better solution (and hence who should get the bug), but suspect that 1) could be implemented quicker and is less likely to affect currently supported devices negatively (as would happen if the list of Photosmart scanners is incomplete). While I consider this to be something which needs to be worked out between the libgphoto and hplip packages, I've included the KDE Extras Team and udev because Marco is the one most likely to have the best insight into the problem and it is Digikam which appears to be breaking (superficially at least, my problem looks the same as #409209, #451783, and Bug 155825 in the KDE bug DB, maybe this offers a clue to solving one of them). - Bruce p.s. Keep me in the loop, please, so I don't get caught with duplicate/unnecessary/conflicting rules because of some local fix I've implemented... it is the least you can do since I've not filed an RC bug against one of you so close to a release. :-) _______________________________________________ pkg-kde-extras mailing list pkg-kde-extras@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-extras