On Tue, Nov 30, 1999 at 05:00:37PM +0000, Roger Brooks wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Feico Dillema wrote:
> 
> >On Tue, Nov 30, 1999 at 03:47:40PM +0000, Julian Coleman wrote:
> >> Thomas Klausner wrote:
> >I'd vote for total removal from the tree. I don't believe it has
> >(many) users left and it is i386 specific or at least little-endian
> >specific (there are bitfields used in it). I don't think there's
> >anybody willing to spend time on it in the future, and scanning
> >the Net for info a year ago it seemed that PINT was quite dead too.
> >So, I'd say get rid of that ugly piece of code in the NetBSD tree,
> >that only seems to cause trouble for users.
> 
> Hang on a minute!  I have a Mustek scanner which uses the ss driver.
> Or are you saying that SANE can also handle all the supported scanners
> through the uk driver?

SANE supports quite a lot of Mustek scanners, and I'd be pretty
suprised if you have one that is supported by the ss driver and
not by SANE. Even if it isn't, it would be very little work to 
add support for it to SANE (if it works with the ss driver, we
know the SCSI commands needed, and then adding a backend for it
to SANE is fairly trivial.). Check SANE out, and let us know
if you're still an ss user after that. (SANE is rather nice,
with things like being able to scan directly from Gimp and so).

Feico.