On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:57:29 -0500
m. allan noah kitno455 at gmail.com wrote:
Why an 1.1 COMPLIANT frontend should be allowed to compile against 1.0
SANE?
I've never seen in my whole life any other library that has such
a requirement. When the library version changes, you have to
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 07:59:06 +0100
Gerhard Jaeger gerhard at gjaeger.de wrote:
Now if the other developers here can declare their intentions
and the way they want to implement them, we can have a better
picture of the thing that's going on and we can see if and
how we can work
Alessandro Zummo azummo-lists at towertech.it wrote:
Hi,
By declaring that you are sane 1.1 compliant you, the programmer,
are telling your users that you have put your efforts into making your
code robust, to check and handle error codes.
I got lost in what you're proposing to use a the
was scrubbed...
Name: sane-intall-hal-fdi.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 1269 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/sane-devel/attachments/20080229/b6bd399a/attachment.bin
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 19:10:11 +0100
Julien BLACHE jb at jblache.org wrote:
Alessandro Zummo azummo-lists at towertech.it wrote:
Hi,
By declaring that you are sane 1.1 compliant you, the programmer,
are telling your users that you have put your efforts into making your
code robust,
was scrubbed...
Name: sane-intall-hal-fdi.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 1269 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/sane-devel/attachments/20080229/22966191/attachment.bin
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name
was scrubbed...
Name: sane-intall-hal-fdi.patch
Type: text/x-patch
Size: 1219 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/sane-devel/attachments/20080229/1a8778f3/attachment.bin
that of the ordinary user because you can not provide both
iscan-2.11.0 and iscan-2.10.0 next to one another. You either don't
support the models added in 2.11.0 (and later?) or drop the models
that require an incompatible plugin. Either choice is bad because you
will put your users out in the
thing there is some value that is never cleaned. if this is a bug,
there something i can do? i REALLY need this work.
Well thanks like always
Tobias
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 6:21 PM, m. allan noah kitno455 at gmail.com wrote:
it should, but i take it from your question that it does not? :)
That could be one reason. Could I ask you to conduct the same test and
supply the log, but using another frontend, perhaps Xsane? Also with
debugging (SANE_DEBUG_HP5590=50) enabled.
Anyway, the log looks normal for me, except for scanner failed to
start scanning operarion for 2nd page.
Next step
10 matches
Mail list logo
