Description of problem: xsane attached to a usb scanner will not launch if the user is not root (and warns you of the risks if you do sudo root). scanimage has the same problem. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 1.0.19 How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Log in as a normal user 2. Attempt to launch any scanner tool as the normal user 3. Actual results: no scanner device found/recognised Expected results: Scanner available to the user Additional info I have chmodded the entire /proc/bus/usb tree +rwx, as well as every node in /dev/*usb*, no luck sane tools also do not give any meaningful output that would help debug this problem
downgrading from xsane.i586 0:0.997-1.fc11 to xsane-0.996-7.fc11.i586 helps.
The problem is apparently in hal. See Launchpad bug for more details.
Got rid from this problem after having installed all F11 updates (until September 17, 2009), including xsane-0.997-1.fc11.i586
But still too present in Rawhide (probably from different reasons then)
Has there been any progress on this issue? I have a Samsung scx-4500w which was working fine as a scanner in f10. I just upgraded to f11 and it fails to work. I added lines to /etc/sane.d/xerox_mfp.conf as #Samsung SCX-4500W usb 0x04e8 0x342b Then cd /usr/share/hal/fdi/information/20thirdparty/ and added lines in Samsung section of 19-libsane.fdi <!-- Samsung SCX-4500W --> <match key="usb.product_id" int="0x342b"> <append key="info.capabilities" type="strlist">scanner</append> </match> This should work but as user I xsane cannot find the device - and yet if I do sane-find-scanner as normal user I get lines included in the terminal: found USB scanner (vendor=0x04e8 [Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.], product=0x342b [SCX-4500W Series]) at libusb:001:005 # Your USB scanner was (probably) detected. It may or may not be supported by # SANE. Try scanimage -L and read the backend's manpage. So I did scanimage -L which gave: 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). I have not tried as root as this is a production machine - and using the scanner as root would be a security risk. I would like to know if this is currently being worked on? Also is there any workaround? The HAL method ought to work surely?
My comment #5 was with xsane-0.997-1.fc11.i586 and with all f11 updates current as at 4th October 2009. I don't know if downgrading xsane as per #1 would work - I did not try that - but I would like to move forward on this. There is nothing relevant in /var/log/messages to help diagnose this as far as I can see.
I have managed to make the Samsung scanner work - I found that the dll.conf files in /etc/sane.d/ were interesting. There were two files in my system - which were: -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 916 2009-10-03 12:13 dll.conf -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 664 2009-06-23 09:04 dll.conf.rpmnew I note that dll.conf was dated later than dll.conf.rpmnew - and the dll.conf file did not include xerox_mfp, whereas the earlier dated dll.conf.rpmnew did include this and in my case this is needed for the driver! So I simply did the following: mv dll.conf dll.conf.orig cp dll.conf.rpmnew dll.conf To make the .rpmnew version current and fired up GIMP and asked for a scan - and it worked just fine. Is this merely a packaging error for the rpm??
Sorry for the late reply, I've been on vacation. (In reply to comment #7) > I have managed to make the Samsung scanner work - > > I found that the dll.conf files in /etc/sane.d/ were interesting. > > There were two files in my system - which were: > -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 916 2009-10-03 12:13 dll.conf > -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 664 2009-06-23 09:04 dll.conf.rpmnew > > I note that dll.conf was dated later than dll.conf.rpmnew - and the dll.conf > file did not include xerox_mfp, whereas the earlier dated dll.conf.rpmnew did > include this and in my case this is needed for the driver! > > So I simply did the following: > mv dll.conf dll.conf.orig > cp dll.conf.rpmnew dll.conf > > To make the .rpmnew version current and fired up GIMP and asked for a scan - > and it worked just fine. > > Is this merely a packaging error for the rpm?? IMO, the package is correct in this regard -- the dll.conf file is marked as %config(noreplace) which means the following when updating the package: - If the installed dll.conf file isn't modified, it just gets replaced with the new version. - If there are modifications to that file (e.g. the admin edited it), the old version will remain and the new one will be written to dll.conf.rpmnew. The admin is responsible to merge local modifications and additions to the config file. Unfortunately, some other packages modified dll.conf in the past, triggering that behaviour (there's no way for RPM to know whether modifications were done manually or by other packages). Did you have to modify permissions on the device files for this to be working?
As far as I remember I had not changed anything on the files from the point of installing f11 - and the only point at which I changed the files was as I reported above.
*** Bug 527031 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 525769 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I'm shipping adapted udev (instead of HAL) rules which should fix this in sane-backends-1.0.20-8, which is building right now.
You can find packages of 1.0.20-8 at the descendant build tasks for your architecture at: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1762582 After updating to this version, you need to unplug/replug or power-cycle your USB scanner for the changes to be effective. Please try them out and report back, once I have positive reports, I'll submit this for inclusion in F-12 GA (instead of pushing this as an update). Thanks.
Make that 1.0.20-9, this is at: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1762797 It's still building, but should be finished in a few mins.
The new sane-backends is not bi-arch compatible. I get conflicts when installing sane-backends-1.0.20-9.fc12.i686.rpm sane-backends-1.0.20-9.fc12.x86_64.rpm I need the .i686 as a requirement from picasa. All the man pages conflict and the new .rules Example file /lib/udev/rules.d/65-libsane.rules conflicts between attempted installs of sane-backends-1.0.20-9.fc12.i686 and sane-backends-1.0.20-9.fc12.x86_64 file /usr/share/doc/sane-backends-1.0.20/sane-backends-external.html conflicts between attempted installs of sane-backends-1.0.20-9.fc12.i686 and sane-backends-1.0.20-9.fc12.x86_64 file /usr/share/doc/sane-backends-1.0.20/sane-backends.html conflicts between attempted installs of sane-backends-1.0.20-9.fc12.i686 and sane-backends-1.0.20-9.fc12.x86_64
However, forcing the packages to install does seem to correct the permission issue
(In reply to comment #15) > The new sane-backends is not bi-arch compatible. I get conflicts when > installing > > sane-backends-1.0.20-9.fc12.i686.rpm > sane-backends-1.0.20-9.fc12.x86_64.rpm > > I need the .i686 as a requirement from picasa. All the man pages conflict and > the new .rules You shouldn't need to install sane-backends.i?86 -- all libraries etc. (which should be what Picasa needs) are in the sane-backends-libs packages (which are multilib clean). Would you please check this?
Nils, You are correct, after upgrading all the sane packages I could remove sane-backends [kdekorte@quad ~]$ rpm -qa sane\* sane-backends-libs-gphoto2-1.0.20-9.fc12.i686 sane-backends-libs-1.0.20-9.fc12.i686 sane-backends-1.0.20-9.fc12.x86_64 sane-backends-libs-gphoto2-1.0.20-9.fc12.x86_64 sane-backends-devel-1.0.20-9.fc12.i686 sane-backends-libs-1.0.20-9.fc12.x86_64 sane-backends-1.0.20-9.fc12.i686 sane-backends-devel-1.0.20-9.fc12.x86_64 [kdekorte@quad ~]$ sudo rpm -e sane-backends-1.0.20-9.fc12.i686 [sudo] password for kdekorte: [kdekorte@quad ~]$ sudo rpm -e sane-backends-libs-1.0.20-9.fc12.i686 error: Failed dependencies: libsane.so.1 is needed by (installed) picasa-3.0.5744-02.i386 libsane.so.1 is needed by (installed) sane-backends-devel-1.0.20-9.fc12.i686 sane-backends-libs(x86-32) = 1.0.20-9.fc12 is needed by (installed) sane-backends-libs-gphoto2-1.0.20-9.fc12.i686 sane-backends-libs(x86-32) = 1.0.20-9.fc12 is needed by (installed) sane-backends-devel-1.0.20-9.fc12.i686 but I could not do this prior to upgrading the packages.
That may be due to how you installed the updated packages... I guess because you downloaded sane-backends.i686 as well and ran rpm/yum on it it attempted installing it. Through normal update channels, it wouldn't do that. I take it that it works for you (Kevin) now. Anybody else who tried it out?
Tim Waugh reminded me that setting a mode and having ACLs in udev rules isn't reliable so I've kicked off a new build of sane-backends-1.0.20-10 which doesn't do that: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1763069 Should be ready in a few minutes, please test.
1.0.20-10 appears to work fine for me.
I have confirmed that with 1.0.20-10 I can scan as a regular user.
Thanks for the testing, I've submitted this for inclusion in F-12 final: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/2666
*** Bug 530734 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***