On 2010/11/24 19:06, Antoine Jacoutot wrote: > 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).
