Simple Scan doesn't recognise SCSI scanner that scanimage does

Bug #1451086 reported by markling
6
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Simple Scan
New
Undecided
Unassigned

Bug Description

Epson GT-7000 scanner.

It's there. I can operate it with Scanimage. But Simple Scan says no scanner detected.

Here's the details:

# cat /proc/scsi/scsi
Attached devices:
...
Host: scsi4 Channel: 00 Id: 00 Lun: 00
  Vendor: EPSON Model: SCANNER GT-7000 Rev: 1.14
  Type: Processor ANSI SCSI revision: 02

# scanimage --list-devices
device `epson2:/dev/sg3' is a Epson GT-7000 flatbed scanner
device `epson:/dev/sg3' is a Epson GT-7000 flatbed scanner

# scanimage -T
scanimage: scanning image of size 424x585 pixels at 1 bits/pixel
scanimage: acquiring gray frame, 1 bits/sample
scanimage: reading one scanline, 53 bytes... PASS
scanimage: reading one byte... PASS
scanimage: stepped read, 2 bytes... PASS
scanimage: stepped read, 4 bytes... PASS
scanimage: stepped read, 8 bytes... PASS
scanimage: stepped read, 16 bytes... PASS
scanimage: stepped read, 32 bytes... PASS
scanimage: stepped read, 64 bytes... PASS
scanimage: stepped read, 63 bytes... PASS
scanimage: stepped read, 31 bytes... PASS
scanimage: stepped read, 15 bytes... PASS
scanimage: stepped read, 7 bytes... PASS
scanimage: stepped read, 3 bytes... PASS

Revision history for this message
Robert Ancell (robert-ancell) wrote :

Could you attach the file ~/.cache/simple-scan/simple-scan.log after seeing the "no scanner" message (or run simple-scan --debug). If scanimage -L shows the scanner simple-scan should also be picking it up.

Revision history for this message
markling (markling) wrote :
Download full text (3.4 KiB)

'scuse this late reply. I sometimes don't get on here v. often.

Some unusual behaviour to report as well, after another attempt to use the scanner this week:

(i) I turned scanner/machine on.
System: recognised scanner.
Simple Scan: did not recognise scanner.

(ii) Scanner turned off. Left machine on for a couple of days.

(iii) Scanner turned back on.
Simple Scan: recognised the scanner.

(iv) Told Simple Scan to perform a scan.
Simple scan: performed a scan.

(v) Told simple scan to stop half-way through (had scanned as much as necessary for this test).
Simple Scan: stopped the scanner.
(But unhelpfully, the scanner stayed stopped at the point where it had reached in the scan - the scan arm did not return to its neutral position - another bug?).

(vi) I think I may have restarted Simple Scan at this point, in an attempt to get it to return the scanner to its neutral position.
Simple Scan: says it doesn't recognise the scanner anymore.
scanimage: doesn't recognise the scanner either: "No scanners were identified."
Scanner: is still on, attached, and stuck where Simple Scan left it.

----------------------------------------------------
~/.cache/simple-scan/simple-scan.log

[+0.00s] DEBUG: simple-scan.vala:596: Starting Simple Scan 3.12.1, PID=8198
[+0.01s] DEBUG: Connecting to session manager
[+0.19s] DEBUG: ui.vala:1648: Loading state from /home/mark/.cache/simple-scan/state
[+0.19s] DEBUG: ui.vala:1629: Restoring window to 600x400 pixels
[+0.19s] DEBUG: autosave-manager.vala:64: Loading autosave information
[+0.19s] DEBUG: autosave-manager.vala:258: Waiting to autosave...
[+0.19s] WARNING: autosave-manager.vala:76: Could not load autosave infomation; not restoring any autosaves
[+0.30s] DEBUG: scanner.vala:1443: sane_init () -> SANE_STATUS_GOOD
[+0.30s] DEBUG: scanner.vala:1449: SANE version 1.0.23
[+0.30s] DEBUG: scanner.vala:1510: Requesting redetection of scan devices
[+0.30s] DEBUG: scanner.vala:802: Processing request
[+0.31s] DEBUG: autosave-manager.vala:280: Autosaving book information
[+0.41s] DEBUG: ui.vala:1739: Saving state to /home/mark/.cache/simple-scan/state
[+3.22s] DEBUG: scanner.vala:338: sane_get_devices () -> SANE_STATUS_GOOD
[+5.80s] DEBUG: autosave-manager.vala:194: Deleting autosave records
[+5.81s] DEBUG: scanner.vala:1583: Stopping scan thread
[+5.81s] DEBUG: scanner.vala:802: Processing request
[+5.82s] DEBUG: scanner.vala:1594: sane_exit ()

----------------------------------------------------
# simple-scan -- debug

(This was only running for the tail end of the procedure described above)

[+0.02s] DEBUG: simple-scan.vala:596: Starting Simple Scan 3.12.1, PID=21922
[+0.18s] DEBUG: ui.vala:1648: Loading state from /root/.cache/simple-scan/state
[+0.18s] DEBUG: ui.vala:1629: Restoring window to 600x400 pixels
[+0.19s] DEBUG: autosave-manager.vala:64: Loading autosave information
[+0.19s] DEBUG: autosave-manager.vala:258: Waiting to autosave...
[+0.19s] WARNING: autosave-manager.vala:76: Could not load autosave infomation; not restoring any autosaves
[+0.27s] DEBUG: scanner.vala:1443: sane_init () -> SANE_STATUS_GOOD
[+0.27s] DEBUG: scanner.vala:1449: SANE version 1.0.23
[+0.27s] DEBUG: scanner.vala:1510: Requesti...

Read more...

Revision history for this message
markling (markling) wrote :

Addition to last comment above:

# lsscsi
..
[4:0:0:0] process EPSON SCANNER GT-7000 1.14 -

# scanimage -L
No scanners were identified...

Revision history for this message
markling (markling) wrote :

This looks like it may not be a bug after all.

Not that it matters either way because all the developers/bug subscribers have buggered off. Don't you love the way you do that? You come on here to do your bit by reporting bugs and lobbying for bugs to get fixed. And you rarely get any word of reply. Then when the developers decide there's nothing in your report, they just bugger off.

For what it's worth, for the sake of any lost soul who is unfortunate enough to land up in this god-foresaken dead-end of the internet, and to be so dreadfully lost to have read down this page to these very words (may God save your soul), I'll just say that I checked this bug again today, and ScanImage recognised the scanner fine.

(But that isn't what happened before! It failed to recognise the scanner when the system could see it was there - and this happened repeatedly! - So I reported a bug!

And what usually happens when you report a bug?

Nothing!

You get no communication in return from the developers - people clearly so oh-so-dreadfully important that they dare not taint the purity of their intellects by deigning to converse directly with the plebs who use their hobby software. Oh what a dread thought!

Oh they might come on with some terse request for more info. But you get no report on what's happening, no insight into what's being done, what challenges addressed, what has happened with the bug, what's become of it when they all bugger off, where they've buggered off too.

You have to wonder if they even talk about these things amongst themselves. Perhaps they are like some form of sentient root vegetable genetically engineered to produce slightly dicky knock-off software but without any chit chat. They communicate by ESP - of course! Then when they see that some chicken pat user has filed come to some low-IQ conculsions about some idiosyncasy of the software being a bug -- duh! -- they all just bugger off in unison.... without.uttering.a.single.word.

Really though, they don't bugger off. That's just my plebby interpretation. What they really do is *glide* off, like in retreat, back into the white mist from whence they came.)

 If you've read this far, fellow loser, fellow flatline-brain-wave, fellow of indiscernible fortune, then take consolation here in two things. You are not alone! There are at least two of us. (I do dearly hope there are atleast two of us). But more! You are not so utterly devoid of hope that you have been unable to continue reading. Take hope then. And get out of here! If you move quickly enough you might be able to sniffel after the footprints of the ubermenschen, and give them the sort of attention they like.

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.