Please update to latest 0.6

Hi,

debs are availables at http://launchpad.net/~bersace/+archive . Note that' gnome-scan 0.X is alpha.

Regards,
Étienne.

Thanks!

Hi,

Gnome Scan 0.6 will be in time for Gnome 2.22. I just have to fix one bug and test a bit the gimp plugin. GEGL 0.0.16 and BABL 0.0.20 will be released as well. Packages are in my ppa : http://launchpad.net/~bersace/+archive.

Do you plan to upgrade to 0.6 including providing GEGL and BABL packages ?

Regards,
Étienne.

Unfortunately, the Ubuntu version freeze has already gone into effect. However, we'll be sure to package the latest version of Gnome Scan for Intrepid when the archive opens.

Today the final 0.6 version has been released, for gnome 2.22.

If hardy is going to have gnome 2.22, why are you guys leaving gnome-scan out? x-sane "kind of works" but is not really user-friendly, I would think. gnome-scan seems a much better option, hopefully it can still make it to hardy.

Hi,

And please use debianisation from my PPA
( https://launchpad.net/~bersace/+archive ) rather than just uupdate
since the gnome-scan is a complete rewrite of gnomescan.

Ross Burton is including GNOME Scan in debian, based on my
debianization, so you might get double checked debianization from Ross
Burton. Also, GNOME Scan needs GEGL which needs BABL both are in debian
and my PPA right now.

Regards,
Étienne.

can't ./configure this package, reports no sane present even though sane is intalled

Just wondering if 0.6 is production ready. I just installed it from Etienne's ppa, I'm scanning full pages at 600dpi, the scanner gets detected, per-scan works, but after launching "Scan", the program seems to get stuck in the "processing image" step. Forever means at least 25 minutes keeping CPU at 100%. This is a reasonble modern machine, core2duo @2.6G / 4GB RAM.

Xsane takes a second or two to display the image after it acquired the image.

gnome-scan UI is great though, I can't wait for it to replace xsane...

Hi,

GNOME Scan 0.X is not "production ready". You should disable automatic
color enhancement in order to save CPU. Anyway, 0.6 is far better than
0.4.

Regards,
Étienne.
--
E Ultreïa !

Hi all,
 I'm on Intrepid and can't find gnome-scan in the general archive. I'm not subscribing to any PPA's but would love to see the UI and things .

Note for self :- Look up his blog http://blogs.gnome.org/gnome-scan/ as much as possible.

Hi,

GNOME Scan 0.4.1 is in universe while GNOME Scan 0.6 is in my PPA. Looks
like ubuntu packagers are repackagin gnome-scan. Let me upload it to
revu.

Regards,
Étienne.
--
E Ultreïa !

Any progress on this? Any chance of still getting it into intrepid?

Hi Étienne,

At least, it's possible to upgrade your PPA to have package for intrepid ?

0.6.1 is out.

Note that 0.6.1 require GEGL 0.0.21 SVN due to a bug in GEGL that makes
images black.

Étienne.
--
E Ultreïa !

Cody, you commented on this package during the hardy freeze - is there any chance that you have time to look at this now for jaunty?

Hi, it would be nice to have 0.6.2 (latest stable upstream release) in jaunty.
0.4.1 is long obsolete and only leads to useless bug reports.

Best regards,

   Philipp

Unfortunately, GEGL 0.0.21 is needed and with being in Feature Freeze we'll have to wait until Karmic.

When reading https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gegl I thought gegl 0.22 went into Jaunty already, but it actually is on Dependency wait.

Awesome :) I'll keep an eye on that.

Hi,

I submitted updated packages http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/gnome-scan
but didn't got any feedback from motu. Wish i'm not too late.

Étienne
--
E Ultreïa !

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gegl/+bug/315778/comments/10
Letting gegl not Build-Depend on libopenraw-dev would avoid the "Dependency wait."

Then gnome-scan 0.6.2 could go in.

Best regards,

   Philipp

According to https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gegl/+bug/315778/comments/13 gegl 0.22 went into jaunty so gnome-scan could go in as well.

Best regards,

   Philipp

Cody: Is there a chance to get gnome-scan 0.6.2 into Jaunty, now that gegl 0.22 is in?
If any help is needed for that, I would be happy to help out.

Best regards,

   Philipp

Bersac: Nathan Handler has agreed to continue to review your gnomescan package via REVU. Please feel free to get in touch with him (nhandler) in #ubuntu-motu on irc.freenode.net

http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/gnome-scan had some uploads and comments, but nothing is going on since 13 Mar 2009.
This is very unfortunate, as gnome-scan upstream (Étienne and me) gets more and more bug repors about very old 0.4 version.

If there is any remedy to get 0.6.2 into Jaunty, please help us out.

Thanks,

   Philipp

Shouldn't the updated description refer to Jaunty instead of Hardy?

probably it should.
and imho the complete changelog is unnecessary here.

and imho it is not possible to get this in jaunty any more but we should ask a motu to get it in karmic as soon as packages can be uploaded there. or even better get it in debian so it arrives there automatically.

feel free to improve the report yourself.

* The package in the PPA fails to declare a build-dependency on libglade2-dev (see FTBFS on karmic/lpia: https://edge.launchpad.net/~pkern/+archive/ppa/+build/1037577).

* The description contains spelling mistakes (NB: I'm no native speaker):
Description: GNOME Scan Infrastructure
 This meta package will depends on all softwares provided by the GNOME
 Scan project (i.e. install new available plugins, etc.).
 .
 GNOME Scan aim to make scanning as easy as printing within the GNOME
 desktop, in a fashion consistent with GtkPrint. This project is in
 alpha stage, feedbacks area *highly* welcomes.

"will depends" -> "depends"; "new available" -> "newly available"; "aim" -> "aims"; "feedbacks area *highly* welcomes" -> "feedback is much appreciated"

* Why has the package been renamed from gnomescan to gnome-scan? I.e. both source package and binary. There is no means of transitioning from the old package to the new implemented in the current version of the package.

Hi,

Could you test source deb from revu, not PPA, since i can't upload to PPA due to bug #378790 .

http://revu.ubuntuwire.org/p/gnome-scan

Regards,
Étienne.

On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 10:54:15AM -0000, Étienne BERSAC wrote:
> Could you test source deb from revu, not PPA, since i can't upload to
> PPA due to bug #378790 .
> http://revu.ubuntuwire.org/p/gnome-scan

I left a comment there.

Kind regards,
Philipp Kern

nota bene: i updated the description (removed lengthy changelog, included revu link)

there has been some activity in the ppa and on revu. i do not know where the most up to date code and the master discussion thread is right now. could this be clarified? is the package with transitional code uploaded?

Hi,

Only my PPA does have transitionnal package. I'll upload latest
debianization monday.

Regards,
Étienne
--
E Ultreïa !

Etienne, was there any progress on this?

Regards,

Le mardi 09 juin 2009 à 12:55 +0000, Philipp Kern a écrit :
> Etienne, was there any progress on this?

Uploaded. Sorry for the delay.

Étienne.
--
E Ultreïa !

I'm currently changing some bits of the packaging based on Étienne's and will upload the result to karmic in the next days.

Étienne, the package's homepage on http://projects.gnome.org/gnome-scan/index looks horribly out-of-date, especially the download section. This URL is also referenced by debian/control.

Hi,

2009/6/30 Philipp Kern <email address hidden>:
> I'm currently changing some bits of the packaging based on Étienne's and
> will upload the result to karmic in the next days

Thanks.

> Étienne, the package's homepage on http://projects.gnome.org/gnome-
> scan/index looks horribly out-of-date, especially the download section.
> This URL is also referenced by debian/control.

Right, i'll take care of changing that during the week.

Étienne.
--
E Ultreïa !

As I guess libgnomescan changed from 0.4 to 0.6, did it break API/ABI? If so, it should bump the SONAME and thus the package name to prevent incompatibilities.

2009/6/30 Philipp Kern <email address hidden>:
> As I guess libgnomescan changed from 0.4 to 0.6, did it break API/ABI?
> If so, it should bump the SONAME and thus the package name to prevent
> incompatibilities.

Total break. However, i would like not to increment ABI version before
stable or at least beta. API is so suggest to change and is only use
in the project.

Étienne
--
E Ultreïa !

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 09:35:45PM -0000, Etienne BERSAC wrote:
> 2009/6/30 Philipp Kern <email address hidden>:
> > As I guess libgnomescan changed from 0.4 to 0.6, did it break API/ABI?
> > If so, it should bump the SONAME and thus the package name to prevent
> > incompatibilities.
> Total break. However, i would like not to increment ABI version before
> stable or at least beta. API is so suggest to change and is only use
> in the project.

Then it doesn't make sense to package it as a library, sorry.

Let's just collapse everything into flegita.

Kind regards,
Philipp Kern

Hi,

The library is used by the gimp plugin too. The main goal of the
project is to provide a library for other application (like GtkPrint)
not (ony) replacing xsane.

Regards,
Étienne
--
E Ultreïa !

On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 01:36:05PM -0000, Etienne BERSAC wrote:
> The library is used by the gimp plugin too. The main goal of the
> project is to provide a library for other application (like GtkPrint)
> not (ony) replacing xsane.

Sure, but I won't update libgnomescan0 with the same SONAME breaking ABI
this way. I think it would be easiest to just integrate it into flegita
and maybe also merge the gimp plugin into flegita (and recommend gimp)
because it's just a 17k binary after all.

Kind regards,
Philipp Kern

I agree that it's a long-term plan to have libgnomescan available. In its current form I'd rather not have it, though, especially if you don't intend to bump SONAMEs on ABI changes. Especially I cannot put this new library into libgnomescan0 and the package naming is generally derived from the SONAME.

So I think we should have at max two real packages (which increase the value of gnomescan as it was in Ubuntu before): flegita and maybe flegita-gimp. I'm not sure if we really need a second package for the latter, especially if we integrate libgnomescan with its translations into flegita.

The other question is if we want to migrate from gnomescan to flegita, or from gnomescan to gnome-scan depending on flegita (or flegita and flegita-gimp if we decide to keep both).

But I guess that you agree that we should find an acceptable solution soon to make it into Karmic, right? So we can reintroduce the library (not with the name libgnomescan0, though) in a later release anyway.

Hi,

I said all i had to say about the upstream project. You can do as you
want for packaging, i'll take your package source as new base for my PPA
for development releases.

I agree that the packaging is overkill for the current status. So let
simplify that and do as you think is the best.

Regards,
Étienne.
--
E Ultreïa !

if i understand correctly, gnome-scan intends the following design:

the functional backend:
- libgnomescan

providing functionality for various frontends:
- flegita, a standalone program for scanning documents
- flegita-gimp, a gimp-plugin for tight integration with the gimp
- other frontend programs yet to come, including those from 3rd party developers

---

principally this might be a good packaging structure on the long run. but right now, libgnomescan is not ready for it's intended use as a basis for scanning applications because the api/abi is not considered stable. it is thus not reasonable to package it as a library. i suggest to include it with flegita.

the options for flegita-gimp are to either include it with flegita or to make it a separate package. i prefer the first approach because it means just one package. for one thing i recently learned that it is beneficial to spare unnecessary packages and moreover the whole "gnomescan thing" is just one product right now.

---

i suggest a single package. i'd call it gnomescan, because it is a catchy name and established with the community. gnome-scan is acceptable, too. however it causes some overhead with transitional packages and has not been used "in the wild" yet. i could live with flegita, but it is not catchy or descriptive. furthermore it is the name of one part of the project only.

---

@Philipp: from a packaging point of view, is it ok to have one "gnomescan" package bundling all the "gnomescan stuff"? is it an advisable approach to do it as described above and split the package when libgnomescan becomes stable and useful on it own? would you do the packaging?

@Étienne: is this one-package-approach ok for you? can we call it gnomescan? are we supposed to call it gnome-scan? or should it be named flegita?

please comment timely, so work can start soon :)

2009/7/2 Michael Nagel <email address hidden>:
> if i understand correctly, gnome-scan intends the following design:
>
> the functional backend:
> - libgnomescan
>
> providing functionality for various frontends:
> - flegita, a standalone program for scanning documents
> - flegita-gimp, a gimp-plugin for tight integration with the gimp
> - other frontend programs yet to come, including those from 3rd party developers

Yes, GNOME Scan is the library. flegita might be another module (own
git, etc.) in the long term, especially once i'll add TDD in GNOME
Scan. This is why there is no binary called "gnome-scan".

> @Étienne: is this one-package-approach ok for you?

Ok

> can we call it gnomescan? are we supposed to call it gnome-scan?

Please name it gnome-scan with an hyphen, not gnomescan. And state in
the description about flegita. But anyway, the entry in the menu does
not talk about "flegita".

Regards,
Étienne.
--
E Ultreïa !

Sadly I still face problems in the upgrade tests when trying to update from gnomescan in jaunty to the new gnome-scan with a dash. apt-get does not accept my hints for upgrade, neither for dist-upgrade. It works with aptitude, though.

debian/control (just added the provides, I tried without it before):

Provides: flegita, flegita-gimp
Conflicts: flegita, flegita-gimp, libgnomescan0, gnomescan (<< 0.6.2-0ubuntu2)
Replaces: flegita, flegita-gimp, libgnomescan0, gnomescan (<< 0.6.2-0ubuntu2)

I get that on dist-upgrade (upgrade does ResolveByKeep and just ignores it):

Investigating gnome-scan
Package gnome-scan has broken dep on flegita
  Considering flegita 0 as a solution to gnome-scan 0
  Holding Back gnome-scan rather than change flegita
Investigating gnomescan
Package gnomescan has broken dep on gnome-scan
  Considering gnome-scan 0 as a solution to gnomescan 0
  Holding Back gnomescan rather than change gnome-scan
 Try to Re-Instate gnomescan
Done

Maybe apt-get prefers real packages over provided ones and as the old flegita and flegita-gimp are still available on my system it considers the old gnomescan to be broken by this change. If this would really be the case there shouldn't be a problem on distro upgrades unless the old release is still kept in sources.list...

Not even squeezing everything into gnomescan makes apt-get consider it. I also tried to apply some Breaks magic but it seems that I'm unable to convince apt-get what I mean. aptitude just works. Oh well...

I don't use Ubuntu Karmic, so just from the ChangeLog I see that gnomescan got an update.

http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/universe/g/gnomescan/gnomescan_0.6.2-0ubuntu1/changelog

has version 0.6.2-0ubuntu1 and looks like all the work has been done twice now.

Best regards,

   Philipp

that package does not include the proposed name change. it has been developed completely disregarding the progress here.

@Philipp (Kern) and Devid: what package should be chosen and how should be proceeded?

 subscribe d.filoni

On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 11:21:50AM -0000, Philipp Sadleder wrote:
> I don't use Ubuntu Karmic, so just from the ChangeLog I see that
> gnomescan got an update.
>
> http://changelogs.ubuntu.com/changelogs/pool/universe/g/gnomescan/gnomescan_0.6.2-0ubuntu1/changelog
>
> has version 0.6.2-0ubuntu1 and looks like all the work has been done
> twice now.

Yep. And he shipped an ABI break without bumping the library package name.
Congratulations.

Kind regards,
Philipp Kern
--
 .''`. Philipp Kern Debian Developer
: :' : http://philkern.de Stable Release Manager
`. `' xmpp:phil@0x539.de Wanna-Build Admin
  `- finger <email address hidden>

Well, Devid Antonio Filoni (the packager) is already subscribed to
this bug, I guess they will be notified of the package name problem.
:)

i subscribed him seconds before posting my comment #52 some minutes ago
he may well be still unaware -- but not for long :)

Mr. Filoni did not comment, libgnomescan doesn't have any other rdeps, so there. Marking as fix released, unassigning myself.