Wichmann, Mats D wrote: > Just comments on this piece, not on the bigger question of whether > SANE support should be added to LSB and when (when mostly depends > on who has time to do the work). >
I have already asked on the SANE mailing list whether the SANE developers would provide documentation and testing scripts, but did not get an answer yet. > Hardware specifics were always considered outside the scope of > LSB as it was purely focused on defining a target for user-level > applications. With the new focus on "hardware" in the form of > printers and perhaps now scanners we may need to think a bit > about that. > The LSB DDK is generally intended to allow hardware manufacturers to supply drivers in a distribution-independent way and so to make it easier for them to support Linux. It covers only user-space drivers, not kernel modules. Having the printing and scanning infrastructure in the LSB is also important for user-level applications, as they can have printing and scanning functionality then (most common user applications have printing functionality, and many also scanner access, like OpenOffice.org or the GIMP). > getpass has been explained as one of those "don't use this" > interfaces as the password is stored in clear text in the > process's address space. The glibc documentation contains > one alternative implementation. It should be possible to > have password prompting without using getpass specifically. > So we should file bugs against CUPS and SANE that they use this unsecure function and should replace it? Till