On 2010/11/24 19:06, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
quoted text > On Wed, 24 Nov 2010, Miod Vallat wrote:
>
> > > But is there any reason to keep these devices in uscanner? To my
> > > knowledge, sane is the only tool to access such devices. Is there
> > > other software that need uscanner?
> > >
> > > And more generally, is there any reason to keep uscanner?
> >
> > According to the manpage, it was written to provide a linux-compatible
> > scanner device. If nowadays' scanning applications are perfectly happy
> > with ugen(4), then I see no point in keeping uscanner(4). Unless I
> > misunderstood things...
>
> Well, I don't own many scanners. All I can say is that uscanner is
> deprecated in linux, they now use libusb. I also do so without issue
> but I cannot guess it'll be the same for all scanners around.
> The expected scenario is that all usb scanners *should* work with libusb
> where only some will also work also uscanner.
>
> This calls for testing from people who own such hardware. Personally I'd
> be happy to see uscanner move away, I wouldn't have to config(8) my
> kernel all the time.
How about removing uscanner from GENERIC for now, then if nobody
has a problem with it, remove the code at a later date? (I would
suggest picking that date in advance so it doesn't sit around for
ages).
