Bugzilla – Bug 150168
not able to configure USB-scanner canon canoscan lide30
Last modified: 2006-02-15 09:25:55 UTC
The problem is: The scanner has been detectet correctly as Canon Canoscan Lide30, but it wasn't possible to configure it. By manually choice of the driver Yast adds a second line with the plustek-driver (this driver is correct, too), but will not be conected with the scanner: "No active scanner for this driver". Also: With sane-find-scanner on the console sane detects the scanner correct, scanimage -L doesn't find it. Under Suse 9.3 the configuration of the scanner was no problem and it worked - what's wrong? Das Problem besteht darin, dass der USB-Scanner Canon Canoscan Lide30 zwar korrekt erkannt wird, sich aber nicht konfigurieren lässt. Bei der manuellen Auswahl des Treibers fügt er im Yast eine zweite Zeile ein, in der der Plustek-Treiber zar aufgeführt wird, aber mit dem Scanner nicht in Verbindung gebracht wird. "Kein aktiver scanner für diesen Treiber" Ebenso lässt sich der Scanner mit sane-find-scanner in der Konsole erkennen, scanimage -L findet ihn hingegen nicht. Unter Suse 9.3 ließ er sich problemlos konfigurieren und lief. Was läuft schief?
Hello Holger, there is no need to write German here. Please attach your yast logfiles (/var/log/YaST2) as well as the output of `hwinfo --scanner'.
Created attachment 68119 [details] tar-zipped logfiles of Yast2 Hello Michael, additional to the yast2-logfiles as tar.zip here is the hardware information you asked for: # hwinfo --scanner 20: USB 00.0: 10c00 Scanner [Created at usb.122] UDI: /org/freedesktop/Hal/devices/usb_device_4a9_220e_noserial_if0 Unique ID: cLrx.e0BXa1UqUPA Parent ID: k4bc.W9PREUfQssA SysFS ID: /devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:02.0/usb1/1-2/1-2:1.0 SysFS BusID: 1-2:1.0 Hardware Class: scanner Model: "Canon CanoScan" Hotplug: USB Vendor: usb 0x04a9 "Canon" Device: usb 0x220e "CanoScan" Revision: "1.00" Speed: 12 Mbps Module Alias: "usb:v04A9p220Ed0100dcFFdsc00dpFFicFFisc00ipFF" Config Status: cfg=yes, avail=yes, need=no, active=unknown Attached to: #18 (Hub)
I have a Lide 30 and it works for me. plustek is the right driver for it. All what YaST does and all what it can do is to activate the correct driver for it. Then YaST calls "scanimage -L" to see if the driver recognizes the scanner. In your case the driver doesn't recognize the scanner. YaST logfiles and hwinfo are useless because the scanner is correctly detected and the right driver is activated. Only logs what the driver does might help, see http://portal.suse.com/sdb/en/2004/10/jsmeix_scanner-setup-92.html "Trouble-Shooting (Debugging)" and provide those logs. Read the plustek man page how to enable debugging messages for the plustek driver. Do you use the original Suse Linux 10.0 sane package or another sane package? Did you do a new installation of 10.0 or was it an update from 9.3 and if yes, was 9.3 a new installation or also an update from an older version? See http://portal.suse.com/sdb/en/2005/03/jsmeix_scanner-setup-93.html "Updating from an older SUSE LINUX version" Because it worked under 9.3, see http://portal.suse.com/sdb/en/2005/09/jsmeix_scanner-setup-100.html regarding what has changed from 9.3 to 10.0 (but my Lide30 works out-of-the-box for 10.0).
Hello Johannes, thank you for the information! I'd migrated the system from 9.1 to 9.2 and than to 10.0. The last link in your list gave me the decisive hint: " ... To obtain up-to-date configuration files, move /etc/sane.d/ or remove /etc/sane.d/*, and reinstall the "sane" package again (and the "iscan" package if you use the "epkowa" backend). Then set up the scanner anew (e.g. by using YaST). " Now the scanner works fine! But perhaps the mistake maybe not on the side of Suse. There probably is another reason: Because I'd added a Packman-server to the installation sources some time ago, there was automatically installed a packman-release of sane - and pm-packages are protected ... So this could also be the reason, that the migration didn't work. Thank you very much! Holger
Regarding "installed a packman-release of sane": If it was SANE version 1.0.16 see http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/sane-devel/2005-August/014301.html Furthermore note that older packman versions of sane do not have the *.desc files included but YaST needs them to build up its scanner database and note that the *.desc files in the Suse package have additional "firmware" info so that YaST can show an appropriate message if firmware upload is required. You don't need this for your particular scanner model but what I wanted to point out is that the YaST scanner config is only tested with the Suse package. The reason is that SANE itself does not define a standard for a scanner setup tool - the SANE method is to edit the files in /etc/sane.d/ manually - therefore I must do some special stuff for YaST. This does of course not mean that you are not allowed to install non-Suse packages but if you do it, don't file bug reports about this kind of software or sub-system to us ;-)
I understand what you mean - but the thing is that is wasn't my intention to install a packman release. I discovered the installation of the pm-package first time as I wanted to uninstall sane. Normally by installation I only look at the name of the package - and seldom at the number of the version - and Yast had automatically loaded the packman-package instead of the original suse package. (Packman seems to "dominate" - So I'll change my installation-source-configuration!) But I didn't want to conceal you my "discovery". If I'd made this discovery earlier, I hadn't postet it as bug-report! Sorry for the trouble!
You didn't cause trouble. Your comment #6 makes clear what the real reason was and how an additional installation source can lead to unexpected consequences in arbitrary other areas. Regarding "added a Packman-server to the installation sources" and "Yast had automatically loaded the packman-package instead of the original suse package": As far as I know (but I am not 100% sure) YaST searches all installation sources for a particular package and it installs the newest version which it has found. Personally I think this is often not expected by the user and in the end the user gets unexpected packages installed. See for example the following (German only) mail thread: http://lists.suse.com/archive/suse-linux/2005-Nov/0228.html in particular see my answer: http://lists.suse.com/archive/suse-linux/2005-Nov/0350.html Feel free to file a bug-report about the unexpected behaviour how packages from various installation sources are installed. Personally I think the problem is that it is not obvious for the user what really happens. I assume that if you had known how YaST installs packages from various installation sources, you wouldn't have had the scanner problem.