Package Details: brscan4 0.4.11_1-2

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/brscan4.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: brscan4
Description: SANE drivers from Brother for compatible models
Upstream URL: http://support.brother.com
Keywords: scanner
Licenses: GPL, custom:brother
Submitter: Harvey
Maintainer: Harvey
Last Packager: Harvey
Votes: 165
Popularity: 2.55
First Submitted: 2011-08-01 08:43 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2023-03-06 12:56 (UTC)

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 24 Next › Last »

markuschaaf commented on 2021-04-16 15:41 (UTC)

What's the purpose of using hwdb, besides "because you can"? Supporting the scanner group has a real world use case: I can use the scanner from other services beside saned and over ssh, which is what I do. Now the package is broken for me and I have to roll my own. The udev-rules I had sent @Harvey worked for everyone. I don't know what's the reason for those commenters here pushing their unjustified but fashionable ideas.

ettavolt commented on 2021-04-14 12:27 (UTC) (edited on 2021-04-14 12:28 (UTC) by ettavolt)

Sorry, still didn't manage to bring my Arch installation to the device.

I can say that systemd-udevd accepts the new file at least.

Harvey commented on 2021-04-14 10:42 (UTC)

Ok, although I am not fully convinced yet I made up my mind to sync with sane's behavior. Pushed a new package Version with udev-hwdb support. Lets see what happens (Fingers crossed).

egrupled commented on 2021-04-13 20:12 (UTC)

I think when provided udev+hwdb approach will work here then other packages will follow (if they are still maintained). Someone must go first.

Harvey commented on 2021-04-13 19:07 (UTC)

@ettavolt: Did you test it? I only have networked devices here so this is rather like flying blind for me :( I had a look at your PKGBUILD. Does this work for you? Meanwhile I looked at the other brscan incarnations (2/3/5) in AUR, none of them is using udev+hwdb... I feel if we decide to go this way, at least all should do the same. And the Arch wiki should be corrected as well: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/CUPS/Troubleshooting#Conflict_with_SANE

Harvey commented on 2021-04-13 19:04 (UTC)

@ettavolt: Did you test it? I only have networked devices here so this is rather like flying blind for me :( I had a look at your PKGBUILD. Does this work for you? Meanwhile I looked at the other brsan incarnations (2/3/5) in AUR, none of them is using udev+hwdb...

ettavolt commented on 2021-04-12 18:13 (UTC) (edited on 2021-04-12 18:16 (UTC) by ettavolt)

Yes, like this: https://github.com/ettavolt/aur-brscan4/commit/3680c46f83ec7909e433cebfae4d0c92cdb98238

Let me test it though. ☺

egrupled commented on 2021-04-12 17:20 (UTC) (edited on 2021-04-12 17:26 (UTC) by egrupled)

My understanding is if you add right device id to hwdb then systemd will take care of permissions (it will grant permission for currently logged user regardless of any groups set).

I think the request from https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/brscan4/#comment-793321 was about generating .hwdb file with device ids and install it to /usr/lib/udev/hwdb.d/ instead of creating custom udev rules which grant permissions for generated device id.

Harvey commented on 2021-04-12 16:13 (UTC) (edited on 2021-04-12 16:28 (UTC) by Harvey)

To be honest this seems far more complicated to me than it should be and, to be even more honest, I don't understand it. brscan4 is for Multi-function devices, Scan-only devices and god knows for what else, all of them being either networked or attached via local ports. How can a scanner driver decide what group to use or not? Is saned the only daemon/piece of software using scanner devices? If would be easy to generate rules for saned group instead of scanner then... Me scratching head... BTW, mine looks not so different from https://github.com/archlinux/svntogit-packages/blob/packages/sane/trunk/66-saned.rules

egrupled commented on 2021-04-12 15:24 (UTC)

@Harvey sane maintainer in Arch said scanner group (or any other group) isn't used anymore with udev+hwdb setup so why did you switch over it right now?

https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/57391#comment197064

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 24 Next › Last »