* SANE works fine with my scanner using the DLL backend directly to the
microtek2 backend
* saned works fine for network scanning if it's not run through inetd
(saned -d) (although I have to start it manually everytime I want to use it)
* If saned is invoked through inetd, I see the below documented messages and
the client gets a terminated connection
I've seen others speak of this. Does anyone know what:
process_request: received unexpected procedure
means?
Scott Wells
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-sane-devel@mostang.com
> [mailto:owner-sane-devel@mostang.com]On Behalf Of Scott Wells
> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 1999 4:14 PM
> To: sane-devel@mostang.com
> Subject: RE: saned: process_request: received unexpected procedure
> number 0
>
>
> I don't think the issue encountered is unique to the SnapScan,
> though. I'm
> having the EXACT same problems with my Microtek X6 EL. When I
> try to access
> it across the network using saned through inetd, I see this exact error in
> my syslog output:
>
> <hostname> saned[<pid>]: access by <user>@<host> accepted
> <hostname> saned[<pid>]: process_request: received unexpected procedure
> number 0
> <hostname> saned[<pid>]: exiting
>
> Detlev, try taking saned out of inetd.conf and running it as a standalone
> server using 'saned -d'. I bet it works fine that way.
>
> I think this problem is in saned, not in any of the drivers. If not,
> someone PLEASE tell me what's going on so that I can use my scanner across
> the network.
>
> Scott Wells
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-sane-devel@mostang.com
> > [mailto:owner-sane-devel@mostang.com]On Behalf Of Kevin Charter
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 1999 3:49 PM
> > To: sane-devel@mostang.com
> > Subject: Re: saned: process_request: received unexpected procedure
> > number 0
> >
> >
> > Wolfgang Goeller wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello
> > >
> > > > I try to enable Network access to my Agfa-Snapscan via saned.
> > > > I compiled the whole SANE-Package on my Linux-box (SuSE 6.1
> with SANE
> > > > 1.00
> > >
> > > actually the AGFA-Snapscan does work locally rather well - but
> > > either in the snapscan or in the sane-net-backend there's a bug.
> > > It's long known. Normally it's a difference between the expected
> > > and received bytes.
> > > If you use a high debug-level you will see what's wrong.
> > > There's work ongoing but Kevin is very busy might be someone
> > > else could debug the code.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, there is definitely a bug in the SnapScan data buffering, and
> > it's something have had only good intentions about for nine months.
> > I've got a couple of hours I can spend on it tonight. I'll see what
> > I can do, and if I can fix it in a day or two I will. Otherwise
> > I'll try to hand it off to somebody else.
> >
> > Kevin
> > --
> > Kevin Charter Ph.D. Student
> > charter@cs.rice.edu Department of Computer Science
> > http://www.cs.rice.edu/~charter Rice Univerity, Houston, TX, USA
> >
> > --
> > Source code, list archive, and docs: http://www.mostang.com/sane/
> > To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail majordomo@mostang.com
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Source code, list archive, and docs: http://www.mostang.com/sane/
> To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail majordomo@mostang.com
>
>
-- Source code, list archive, and docs: http://www.mostang.com/sane/ To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe sane-devel | mail majordomo@mostang.com