Re: xsane-0.78 - problem?
Hi Andrew!
THX for fast reply!
On Fri, Nov 09, 2001 at 09:47:58AM -0800, Andrew Sharp wrote:
>
> That USB scanner isn't supported AFAICT.
As I mentioned, but the idea was to use that 1220u-driver from
P. Mackerras, if I'd be able to adapt it.
I have a 2010 and that
> doesn't work either. The latest linux kernel can't really identify
> the scanner and in the end it decides it a 'disk.'
In the kernel-ring buffer shows the scanner with following lines:
hub.c: USB new divice connect on bus1/1/3, assigned device number 5
usb.c: USB device 5 (vend/prod 0x1606/0x130) is not claimed by any
active driver
..
..
usb.c: registered new driver usbscanner
scanner.c: 0.4.6:USB Scanner Driver
Whereas the 0x1606/0x130 could be found in scanner.h in
kernel/drivers/usb for the UMAX 2100U in a "static struct
usb_device_id scanner_device_ids"-definition.
So it seems to me, as this device is recognized as scanner, isn't it?
If so, the question is, where I have to have that _active_ driver? (at
that time?).
> linux-usb.org for more info on supported scanners, which would make
> scanner shopping a lot easier.
For shure as is Jonathan Buzzards page at http://www.buzzard.org.uk/jonathan/
and I did that until 2:30am this morning ;-)
> (the driver works -- big deal) that works with the 2010 yet, but
> they have no problem shipping the scanner. You could always try the
> 1220 driver, ymmv. Let us know if you find anything out.
For shure I do so, but allow me one more question as you tried this, I
assume.
If I want to try that driver I have to recompile sane-1.0.6 or
probably *.5, but as I mentioned in my second mail, I couldn't find
them (just looked for binaries) in ppc as they should be in woody or
sid (only x86? : -(( ) at least.
Or do I have to compile that 1220u-backend against the sources of
libsane, as this seems to contain what you find in the sane-backend on
http://www.mostang.com/sane/ ?
To finish: Has anybody here experiences with that he would share?
TIA for all replies
--
M.f.G.
Georg Koss
mailto: g.koss@eunet.at
Reply to: