Re: sane access for non-root user
On 12/13/05, Richard Lyons <richard@the-place.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 13 December 2005 at 14:01:06 -0500, Darryl Clarke wrote:
> > On 12/13/05, Richard Lyons <richard@the-place.net> wrote:
> [...]
> > > Installed xsane
> > > and can only access it as root. Added myself to scanner group, but
> > > still xsane finds 'no devices available' as ordinary user. Can someone
> > > remind me or point me at the relevant instructions.
> > >
> > > uname -r says 2.6.12-1-386. udevd is running -- I suppose that is
> > > obvious as the scanner works for root. What else is important?
> >
> > udev isn't setting permissions properly on the device, I would imagine.
> >
> > I forget exactly where though... /etc/udev/ would be a starting point.
>
> I had already looked there, and /etc/udev/rules.d contains the line:
>
> # Epson Corp.|Perfection 1260
> SYSFS{idVendor}=="04b8", SYSFS{idProduct}=="011d", MODE="660", GROUP="sca\
> nner", RUN+="/etc/hotplug.d/usb/libsane.hotplug"
>
> Which sounds perfect to me. Must be more to it than that, I guess.
Sounds perfect, but it's not. Did you check and see what damage
/etc/hotplug.d/usb/libsane.hotplug might be doing? It _could_ be
undoing the permissions.
It's been a while since I messed with my scanner, but I think I
remember having something similar happen, I just edited the libsane
script and forced the permissions at the end. not very graceful, but
I was annoyed. :)
> > use 'lsusb' to show the device list
> >
> > When the scanner is plugged in check /proc/bus/usb/XXX/NNN where XXX
> > is the bus and NNN is the device listed in lsusb output... and find
> > the device and see what the permissions actually are.
> >
> > you can manually change the permissions on the device too, just chgrp
> > scanner NNN and chmod g+rw NNN
>
> That worked. But I hope I don't have to do it manually every time I
> reboot or hotplug the device.
You will :) Until the script(s) are sorted out, you will...
--
~ Darryl ~ smartssa@gmail.com
http://smartssa.com / http://darrylclarke.com
Reply to: