Fwd: failure of scanner with gnome2 SOLVED
- To: amd64 Debian <debian-amd64@lists.debian.org>
- Subject: Fwd: failure of scanner with gnome2 SOLVED
- From: Francesco Pietra <chiendarret@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:34:07 +0200
- Message-id: <BANLkTimBDFxu=xZAEB-+mbUX-s0zKnUMcA@mail.gmail.com>
While "ls -l /dev/sg*" in my wheezy installation did not assign any
sg* to the scsi scanner, "dmesg | grep -i scsi" identified the Adaptec
card and the HP processor and assigned sg3 to the scsi. Then "chown
/dev/sg3" to me let the scsi scanner work perfectly.
I found no way to have gnome2 automatically mount the usb flash card.
Always "no permission" and I did not bother further to understand
where the permission has to be set. Surely there is some error in the
installation. I mount the flash card manually as something not in the
fstab. An exercise before forgetting unix completely with all these
GUIs.
francesco
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Francesco Pietra <chiendarret@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 4:53 PM
Subject: failure of scanner with gnome2
To: amd64 Debian <debian-amd64@lists.debian.org>
Dist-upgrading to wheezy (gnome2.30.2) prevents me using a scsi HP
6200C scanner. I am trying to use 64bit because my old i386 lack
memory enough for examining large graphic files with VMD; therefore, I
am trying to do everything at 64 bit to spare time.
I tried both
startx
gnome-session
and startx
exec ck-launch-session gnome-session
In both cases:
$ ls -l /dev/sg*
crw------- 1 root root 21, 0 Jun 27 16:21 /dev/sg0
crw------- 1 root root 21, 1 Jun 27 16:21 /dev/sg1
crw-rw----+ 1 root cdrom 21, 2 Jun 27 16:21 /dev/sg2
crw-rw----+ 1 root root 21, 3 Jun 27 16:21 /dev/sg3
instead of the expected "root scanner" to which affording permission
(as it occurred with gnome in squeeze amd64).
Incidentally, a flash card is not automatically mounted (no
permission) but was solved by manual mounting as vfat.
Thanks for suggestions as to making the scanner available (not seen by
either save or vuescan).
francesco pietra
Reply to: