> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2010 19:30:22 +0000 > From: Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> > > 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).
Just nuke it. It'll be sitting in the attick if anybody wants it back.
