On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 16:29:48 +0100 (CET) Johannes Meixner <jsmeix@suse.de> wrote:
Hello,
On Jan 26 09:55 ken wrote (shortened):
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 14:30:08 +0100 (CET) Johannes Meixner
See http://portal.suse.com/sdb/en/2004/10/jsmeix_scanner-setup-92.html "Trouble-Shooting (Debugging)"
That's exactly the document-- that and the *93.html-- are the ones I've been working from. I've tried to run some of the troubleshooting, but I'm probably not divining what the documents are saying. Here's a couple attempts:
# scanimage -d microtek2 -T scanimage: open of device microtek2 failed: Invalid argument
# scanimage -d microtek2:libusb:002:002 -T scanimage: open of device microtek2:libusb:002:002 failed: Invalid argument
Why did you ignore the "export" commands?
Because I wasn't sure that I had the correct values in the Device field in the first two commands (above). The output from the above commands do, after all, say "Invalid argument" for both trials. Isn't it important to determine that a command's arguments have the correct values instead of just running a lot of commands?
Did you read the backend's man page "man sane-microtek2"?
Yes, a couple times. Is there anything in particular a user in my situation would want to take from that...? Or some piece(s) of information necessary or helpful in solving the problem?
In your particular case "scanimage -L" doesn't show a SANE device therefore you cannot use something like scanimage -d microtek2:libusb:002:002 because there is no such SANE device.
Okay. (This is the point I was making above concerning running the rest of the commands.) It would be nice if the documentation indicated in a little more detail how the "Device" argument is to be formed. Users would then be able to do more of the debugging on their own. (I hope you don't mind my offering suggestions.) Concerning the "invalid argument", I used "microtek2" as the first portion because that is the one in the Yast2 listing which best described my scanner. My particular scanner is also listed in the manpage for sane-microtek2. The second part of the (invalid) argument came from the output of sane-find-scanner, i.e., the line: found USB scanner (vendor=0x05da, product=0x20b0) at libusb:002:002 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ These sources, then, would seem to be sufficient for deducing the argument used above, yes?
But you can test "scanimage -L" the same way: For example what results
export SANE_DEBUG_DLL=4 export SANE_DEBUG_EPSON=128 export SANE_DEBUG_SANEI_USB=128 scanimage -L && echo OK || echo FAILED unset SANE_DEBUG_SANEI_USB unset SANE_DEBUG_EPSON unset SANE_DEBUG_DLL
Thank you for that. Just to make cutting and pasting easier and the output cleaner, I put these command on one line: # export SANE_DEBUG_DLL=4; export SANE_DEBUG_EPSON=128; \ export SANE_DEBUG_SANEI_USB=128; \ scanimage -L && echo OK || echo FAILED; unset SANE_DEBUG_SANEI_USB; \ unset SANE_DEBUG_EPSON; unset SANE_DEBUG_DLL and was returned [sanei_debug] Setting debug level of dll to 4. [dll] sane_init: SANE dll backend version 1.0.11 from sane-backends 1.0.15 [dll] add_backend: adding backend `microtek2' [dll] sane_get_devices [dll] load: searching backend `microtek2' in `/usr/lib/fglrx/lib:/usr/lib/sane'[dll] load: trying to load `/usr/lib/fglrx/lib/libsane-microtek2.so.1' [dll] load: couldn't open `/usr/lib/fglrx/lib/libsane-microtek2.so.1' (No such file or directory) [dll] load: trying to load `/usr/lib/sane/libsane-microtek2.so.1' [dll] load: dlopen()ing `/usr/lib/sane/libsane-microtek2.so.1' [dll] init: initializing backend `microtek2' [dll] init: backend `microtek2' is version 1.0.0 [dll] sane_get_devices: found 0 devices No scanners were identified. If you were expecting something different, check that the scanner is plugged in, turned on and detected by the sane-find-scanner tool (if appropriate). Please read the documentation which came with this software (README, FAQ, manpages). [dll] sane_exit: exiting [dll] sane_exit: calling backend `microtek2's exit function [dll] sane_exit: finished OK This tells me that scanimage was able to find a dynamic library file corresponding to the "backend" but was (still) not able to find a "device" (I think in this instance a device *file* like /dev/usb/scanner0, yes?). Setting SANE_DEBUG_DLL with a value higher than 4 didn't increase its verbosity. I couldn't find information about the range of permissible values. If there's a next step to take, I'd be glad to know of it. In the meantime, I'll see what else I can find. Hope my comments have been helpful. I thank you for yours. Regards, ken -- "This world ain't big enough for the both of us," said the big noema to the little noema.