[lsb-discuss] LSB 4.0 and printing
till.kamppeter at gmail.com
Thu Mar 27 15:23:48 PDT 2008
Johannes Meixner wrote:
> On Mar 26 22:34 Till Kamppeter wrote (shortened):
>> What can be added without problems is SANE
> "SANE Standard Version 1.0" (the so called "SANE1")
> to be precise, see
> I would very much appreciate it if SANE1 was LSB standard.
> As Till already mentioned:
> Without a scanning standard in LSB (which is compatible
> with the LSB printing standard), there is just no support
> for all-in-one devices in LSB.
Having scanning covered by the LSB standard will not only help to get
printer manufacturers fully support their multi-function devices, it
will also help scanner manufacturers to ship Linux drivers for their
> But I should mention that there is since a long time
> the discussion on sane-devel at lists.alioth.debian.org
> how to move forward with SANE.
There was again a longer posting about SANE2 today on the SANE mailing
liat. See below.
> Unfortunately - as far as I understand it - the planned
> SANE2 API would not be backward-compatible with SANE1
> which is a main reason - as far as I understand it - why
> there is no real progress how to move forward with SANE.
We must standardize on SANE1, as this is in the distros. SANE2 will for
sure take at least a year until it comes out when work on it would start
today. And it will take two more years until it will make it into all
> Perhaps the experience of LSB people with API upgrades
> could even help the SANE developers to find a solution
> how to move forward with SANE.
With a good planning one can perhaps even reach backward compatibility.
Or one could write a piece of glue code to plug SANE1 drivers into SANE2.
Subject: [sane-devel] SANE2 standard completion
From: stef.dev at free.fr
To: sane-devel at lists.alioth.debian.org
before any work can start on SANE 2, the current proposal has to be
The major change is the image data format. SANE 2 will be able to
handle new formats easily (which matches the current needs, especially
channel). There will be 2 major image format, one pixel oriented and
the other will give images as a mime attachment. There is also standard
part for button handling.
Here is a summary of the differences between SANE 1 and SANE 2 proposal
- the SANE_Device struct has more fields, giving contact information
about the devices in case of bug, and the ability to send device
- the SANE_Parameters changes to suit the image format improvement. It
also gives new informations such as a proposed filename and X/Y dpi.
- capability hidden and allways settable added
- more commonly used options are now part of the standard
SANE operations changes:
- sane_open has a SANE_Device ** parameter
- scanner's button handling
The Network Protocol chapter seems to lag behind the SANE 1 chapter,
and the SANE_NET_OPEN call needs to be updated to reflect sane_open
The current proposal is in good shape, and the change regarding image
format seems to suit the current need for new formats. Converting
to SANE2 doesn't seem that difficult.
But before starting, there are some things I'd like to see in the new
- the current code flow is
rather than calling sane_cancel at the end of scan, I'd like to have a
sane_end function. Leaving the use of sane_cancel for canceling the scan
like it allready does. This new function would do about the same, but
code flow would be cleaner and easier to understand:
- the proposed button handling would surely be better if we create
sane_lock_buttons(), sane_update_buttons() and sane_unlock() buttons,
of doing this with control options.
- we should also add something about panels. Would some control options
be enough, or do we also need some lock/update/unlock behavior ?
- there are some issues about backends configuration. In order to be
detected, some backends need their configuration files tweaked. I think
having well-known configuration options would improve the situation and
also let us have a common way of accessing configuration parameters across
- do we want to improve warmup handling ? Currently there is no
feedback when warming-up is going on, which is sometime confusing, we
can have the feeling that nothing is happening. Do we want a
sane_warm_up() or a
SANE_STATUS_WARMING_UP would be enough ?
There are other points that I feel they could be improved, but could be
done as we develop SANE2:
- we need a sane type for scanner buttons. Either we rename the
SANE_TYPE_BUTTON to SANE_TYPE_SOFT_BUTTON and use SANE_TYPE_BUTTON for
physical buttons, or we create a SANE_TYPE_HARD_BUTTON. So that a
frontend can easily detect hardware buttons. There should be a list of
description to use when possible.
- a SANE_TYPE_PANEL would be handy
- since there are well-know options there should be well-known groups,
and the SANE_CAP of these options should also be given.
- a SANE_STATUS_LOCKED could be added to handle the case where the
hardware lock of a scanner has been left.
-- sane-devel mailing list: sane-devel at lists.alioth.debian.org
Send mail with subject "unsubscribe your_password" to
sane-devel-request at lists.alioth.debian.org
More information about the lsb-discuss