[sane-devel] Going forwared with SANE (was: Re: [announce] coolscan3 release)

[Étienne Bersac]

Hi,

> 1. There is a need for more well-known options controlling certain
> hardware (ie- adf)
> 2. There is a need to expose additional image types to specialized front ends.
> 3. The SANE2 draft is fairly large
> 4. The number of developers is limited

Let me add : 

  5. event (button, sensors) support
  6. hotplug support (through HAL or whatever the host uses).

?tienne.
-- 
E Ultre?a !
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=
Url : 
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/sane-devel/attachments/20071217/3ea40369/attachment.pgp
 

[sane-devel] Going forwared with SANE (was: Re: [announce] coolscan3 release)

[Alessandro Zummo]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:57:51 -0500
"m. allan noah"  wrote:

> 
> Frankly, these changes are quite small, not even a new function call,
> but if the hang-up is purely a philosophical one around the word
> 'standard', then what about SANE1.1? Then every packager/frontend
> author would have to compile against the new version, and we might
> have some systems that continue to ship both versions (even though
> they would be identical for most backends).

 I mostly agree with you, but I want to make a strong point about
 the importance that current frontends should be able to work unaffected
 by those small changes we'd like introduce. 

 I really think we can achieve that. Either by checking that the frontends
 are correctly written or by a mechanism that prevents those new features
 to be exposed by unaware frontends (if it is dangerous to do so)
 or by something else. 

 

-- 

 Best regards,

 Alessandro Zummo,
  Tower Technologies - Torino, Italy

  http://www.towertech.it

[sane-devel] Going forwared with SANE (was: Re: [announce] coolscan3 release)

[Alessandro Zummo]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:31:04 +0100
Julien BLACHE  wrote:

> >  eheh.. just kidding, obviously. in fact I'm pretty satisfied the way
> >  sane works now. 
> 
> There's a real question of how SANE is going forward from there on.
> 
> It'd be nice if we could answer it at some point.

 we could, but every answer will be different or, at least, slightly
 different.

 if we answer, who will take the burden of actually choice 
 a single answer?


-- 

 Best regards,

 Alessandro Zummo,
  Tower Technologies - Torino, Italy

  http://www.towertech.it

[sane-devel] Going forwared with SANE (was: Re: [announce] coolscan3 release)

[Julien BLACHE]

Alessandro Zummo  wrote:

Hi,

>  eheh.. just kidding, obviously. in fact I'm pretty satisfied the way
>  sane works now. 

There's a real question of how SANE is going forward from there on.

It'd be nice if we could answer it at some point.

JB.

-- 
Julien BLACHE    
  GPG KeyID 0xF5D65169

[sane-devel] Going forwared with SANE (was: Re: [announce] coolscan3 release)

[m. allan noah]

On Dec 17, 2007 3:09 PM, ?tienne Bersac  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > 1. There is a need for more well-known options controlling certain
> > hardware (ie- adf)
> > 2. There is a need to expose additional image types to specialized front 
> > ends.
> > 3. The SANE2 draft is fairly large
> > 4. The number of developers is limited
>
> Let me add :
>
>   5. event (button, sensors) support
>   6. hotplug support (through HAL or whatever the host uses).
>

please see #3 and #4 :)

i worry about the goals for the release being too large to ever get
completed, so i am just suggesting to start small with things that i
am willing to personally add, while having minimal disruption.

allan

-- 
"The truth is an offense, but not a sin"

[sane-devel] Going forwared with SANE (was: Re: [announce] coolscan3 release)

[m. allan noah]

On Dec 17, 2007 1:32 PM, Alessandro Zummo  wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 19:31:04 +0100
> Julien BLACHE  wrote:
>
> > >  eheh.. just kidding, obviously. in fact I'm pretty satisfied the way
> > >  sane works now.
> >
> > There's a real question of how SANE is going forward from there on.
> >
> > It'd be nice if we could answer it at some point.
>
>  we could, but every answer will be different or, at least, slightly
>  different.
>
>  if we answer, who will take the burden of actually choice
>  a single answer?
>

ahh- yet more deja vu :)

I do not wish to hijack this project in any way. Most of you guys have
far more experience than I in programming heavily-used applications.
Oliver's opinion in particular carries some weight, being that Xsane
is probably the most developed and one of the more used front-ends,
and he has put quite a bit of effort into the current SANE2 draft.

My observations:

1. There is a need for more well-known options controlling certain
hardware (ie- adf)
2. There is a need to expose additional image types to specialized front ends.
3. The SANE2 draft is fairly large
4. The number of developers is limited

Frankly, these changes are quite small, not even a new function call,
but if the hang-up is purely a philosophical one around the word
'standard', then what about SANE1.1? Then every packager/frontend
author would have to compile against the new version, and we might
have some systems that continue to ship both versions (even though
they would be identical for most backends).

allan
-- 
"The truth is an offense, but not a sin"