Subject: Re: Microtek scanner not showing up?
To: Feico Dillema <>
From: Greywolf <>
List: current-users
Date: 04/05/2002 16:10:20
Well, that was a waste of time.

To be clear:

	$ xsane microtek:/dev/ss0
or, in my newly compiled kernel,
	$ xsane microtek:/dev/uk0

works just fine, but xsane by itself says "No devices found".

i.e. I have recompiled my kernel for naught.  The kernel still doesn't
find the proper device.  I suspect I shall have to enter a quirk for it,
but all I need to do is make it so that when the scanner is found,
it will come up as <Microtek, Scanner 600, 1.70>.

All I need is for it to find the damned identifier so it's usable.

If I go manually, all is well as far as xsane goes, but I can't use it
with the gimp, because it can't identify which kind of device it is.

This is arguably a bug with xsane/gimp, but I need a solution.

On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Feico Dillema wrote:

# Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 18:47:58 +0200
# From: Feico Dillema <>
# To: Greywolf <>
# Cc: BSD Current Users <>
# Subject: Re: Microtek scanner not showing up?
# I think you should not use ss0, but uk0 instead (comment out ss driver
# from your kernel, it's AFAIK very obsolete). At least if you want
# to use it with sane.
# Feico.
# On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 08:41:20AM -0800, Greywolf wrote:
# > Greetings,
# >
# > I have a Microtek E6 scanner which is not showing up properly on a scsi
# > scan.  It shows up as
# >
# > ss0 at scsibus0 target 6 lun 0: <, Scanner 600, 1.70> SCSI3 6/scanner fixed
# > ss0: async, 8-bit transfers
# >
# > Which is good, i.e. it is recognised, but note that the first param is
# > empty.
# >
# > This makes it troublesome to get xsane started for it because I have to
# > constantly supply the name of the device [SANE_DEFAULT_DEVICE has no
# > effect].  It also makes it impossible to get it to work with the Gimp,
# > because with gimp parameters, it's not okay to pass it the device name.
# >
# > Does anyone have any clues as to how to handle this?  I don't want to go
# > in bashing on xsane; I was thinking there would be a way to get the kernel
# > to set its parameters properly...
# >
# > [note:  I have not had coffee yet.  Excuse me if this is the wrong way
# > to go about it.]
# >
# > 				--*greywolf;
# > --
# > NetBSD: Stable and strong!

NetBSD: Stable and strong!