[sane-devel] Bug#597922: Additional Scanner Logs

2010-12-21 Thread Julien BLACHE
Olaf Meeuwissen wrote: Hi, >> Also note that the 640u still doesn't work with epson2 after the fixes >> that have been done so far; it's still NAKing some command (there's a >> log in the Debian bug report if anybody wants to look into it). > > It's sending an unsupported ESC m. That has been f

[sane-devel] Bug#597922: Additional Scanner Logs

2010-12-21 Thread Olaf Meeuwissen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2010-12-20 20:15, Julien BLACHE wrote: > [...] > > Also note that the 640u still doesn't work with epson2 after the fixes > that have been done so far; it's still NAKing some command (there's a > log in the Debian bug report if anybody wants to loo

[sane-devel] Bug#597922: Additional Scanner Logs

2010-12-20 Thread Julien BLACHE
Olaf Meeuwissen wrote: Hi, > I checked with Epson and confirmed that the error code can safely be > masked with 0xc0 for the Perfection 1650. This should be done before > checking any of the bit flags of course. > Also note that this is a model specific fix and should not be applied in > genera

[sane-devel] Bug#597922: Additional Scanner Logs

2010-12-20 Thread Olaf Meeuwissen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2010?12?07? 08:50, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote: > On 2010?12?06? 09:44, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote: >> [...] The backend does not >> do the right thing protocol-wise and I suggested a fix in a previous >> comment. Once that fix is added, you will still be ou

[sane-devel] Bug#597922: Additional Scanner Logs

2010-12-07 Thread Olaf Meeuwissen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2010?12?06? 09:44, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote: > [...] The backend does not > do the right thing protocol-wise and I suggested a fix in a previous > comment. Once that fix is added, you will still be out of luck because > your scans will be aborted by

[sane-devel] Bug#597922: Additional Scanner Logs

2010-12-06 Thread Olaf Meeuwissen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2010-12-05 06:38, Soren Stoutner wrote: > On Thursday, December 02, 2010 05:37:36 pm Olaf Meeuwissen wrote: >> On 2010-12-02 20:17, Julien BLACHE wrote: >> For some reason the device is saying that it received a cancel request >> (did someone push a

[sane-devel] Bug#597922: Additional Scanner Logs

2010-12-04 Thread Soren Stoutner
On Thursday, December 02, 2010 05:37:36 pm Olaf Meeuwissen wrote: > On 2010-12-02 20:17, Julien BLACHE wrote: > For some reason the device is saying that it received a cancel request > (did someone push a cancel button on the device?). Protocol-wise, the > backend is supposed to send a CAN in that