[sane-devel] scanbd integration (was Re: sane-backends release 1.0.26 schedule)

[Olaf Meeuwissen]

Hi Louis,

Louis Lagendijk writes:

> On Fri, 2017-04-28 at 08:04 -0400, m. allan noah wrote:
>> Ok folks, it's time to get another sane-backends release out the
>> door.
> [snip]
>
> Hi,
> Yesterday when I had a look at our bug tracker for any issues in my
> code I found https://alioth.debian.org/tracker/?func=detail&group_id=30186&aid=315004&atid=410366
> This is an issue for scanbd integration that requires more flexibility
> for configuration of dll-loading: when scanbd is used users need to use
> the net backend only, but scanbd/saned need to be fed with the
> "normal" list of backends.

Thanks for trying to improve scanbd integration.

> I made a patch to dll.c where
> - It used the dll.conf with the name pointed out by env. var
> SANE_CONFIG_FILE if defined, if not
> - it tries to load a dll2.conf if it exists. This is meant to be a file
> dropped in thre sane config dir by scanbd. If that does not exist
> - it follows the existing code path.

So, if I understand correctly, your patched dll backend tries

  $SANE_CONFIG_FILE (if defined)
  $SANE_CONFIG_DIR/dll2.conf (if SANE_CONFIG_DIR is defined)
  $sysconfdir/dll2.conf
  $SANE_CONFIG_DIR/dll.conf (if SANE_CONFIG_DIR is defined)
  $sysconfdir/dll.conf

where $sysconfdir is set at ./configure time.  Is that right?

If so, I guess that could be okay but I don't like the dll2.conf name
very much.  It seems to imply there's a dll2 backend.  There isn't one,
not now at least.

> I added a #include statement in the config file so dll2.conf can
> include dll.conf if so required.

How does that work when SANE_CONFIG_DIR is defined?

> I am in the process of testing and cleaningup. but my question is:
> should I commit this change so close to the freeze date?

I prefer you don't.  There still seem to be a few things that need
sorting out and code freeze is tomorrow ;-)  Too risky if you ask me.

> Documentation is still to be done, but I would still have 2 weeks for
> that.  Alan, what do you think?

Allan, can we make improving scanbd integration a priority for the
release after 1.0.26 and schedule that soonish, like say in three months
or so?  Preferably in time for inclusion in the Autumn releases of the
major Linux distributions.

Hope this helps,
--
Olaf Meeuwissen, LPIC-2            FSF Associate Member since 2004-01-27
 GnuPG key: F84A2DD9/B3C0 2F47 EA19 64F4 9F13  F43E B8A4 A88A F84A 2DD9
 Support Free Software                        https://my.fsf.org/donate
 Join the Free Software Foundation              https://my.fsf.org/join