Hi,
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 07:21:13PM +0100, Major A wrote:
> Just a quick thought -- if the dc240 is a driver for a digital camera,
> why is it necessary to have a SANE backend for it anyway? If it's
> supported by gphoto(2), that should be sufficient. May I suggest we
> make compilation optiona
For now, I would like to keep the dc240 backend - mainly because
it makes it available to people that don't have the gphoto2 package.
However, I think it makes sense to disable it if the compiler is
not gcc. Does it make sense to do that for this release? Can
anyone suggest a good way to do this
I've made this change. I don't see any easy way to fix it
in portable way, and more importantly I don't have any way to
test it. I'll be glad to take patches if someone wants to supply
them.
--
Peter Fales
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 06:50:14PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>
> I just discov
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 11, 2002 at 06:50:14PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> I just discovered this code when trying to find out why the CVS
> version of sane-backends fail to compile on HP/UX using the native
> compiler.
That's interesting because nobody has noticed until now. dc240 is in
sane-bac
> That's interesting because nobody has noticed until now. dc240 is in
> sane-backends since 1.0.5. Maybe all the systems that were used to
> test don't have libjpg so dc240 wasn't even compiled.
That's probably the case.
Just a quick thought -- if the dc240 is a driver for a digital camera,
why
I just discovered this code when trying to find out why the CVS
version of sane-backends fail to compile on HP/UX using the native
compiler.
#ifdef __GNUC__
#define UNUSEDARG __attribute__ ((unused))
#define PACKED__attribute__ ((packed))
#else
#define UNUSEDARG
/* You need to figu
