Hi,
On 31.03.2008, at 13:15, ?tienne Bersac wrote:
Hi,
As a frontend developer, i just would like to
* have SANE backend more consistent (more well known options
including well known sensors)
* compute SANE device name without loading the backend for
hotpluggable device.
did you
Hi,
I also quite like the users don't want another daemon running
Personnaly, i don't care to have a cups for scanner. But people in
distributions, dev in other pieces of the stacks and end-users tell so.
Again, we should not impose a service but rather keep at least library
(and the daemon
On 3/31/08, ?tienne Bersac bersace03 at gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I also quite like the users don't want another daemon running
Personnaly, i don't care to have a cups for scanner. But people in
distributions, dev in other pieces of the stacks and end-users tell so.
Again, we should not
Hi,
GUI clients are probably the largest group of _users_ of SANE. CLI
clients probably aquire more _images_. The needs of both groups must
be met.
Completely agree.
Best regards,
?tienne.
?tienne Bersac bersace03 at gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I also quite like the users don't want another daemon running
Personnaly, i don't care to have a cups for scanner. But people in
distributions, dev in other pieces of the stacks and end-users tell so.
You're getting more and more funny as
m. allan noah kitno455 at gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
As such, i would like to extend SANE1 just a little bit, and i dont
care if we call it SANE2 and give it a new soversion. Then, we can
spend all the time you guys want developing an extensible network
protocol, and turning saned into a real
