After upgrading to 1.0.27, sane-backends ceased to recognize my Samsung SCX-4725FN scanner. The same happens with 1.0.27-r1. This model always worked perfectly well with the xerox_mfp backend. I'm afraid I don't know what additional information I could give, it's just that sane doesn't see the scanner. Downgrading to 1.0.25-r1 solves the problem and I can scan as usual. A web search suggest that other Samsung scanners might have the same problem.
The bug has been closed via the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=b4a4aa9c04d755547aa82b881499fd7a6172bfc9 commit b4a4aa9c04d755547aa82b881499fd7a6172bfc9 Author: Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2018-10-20 15:11:29 +0000 Commit: Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2018-10-20 16:35:31 +0000 media-gfx/sane-backends: Fixes from Fedora and Debian... They fix an important bug with Samsung devices not being properly recognized and noises in some devices. We also start disabling locking as all the other distributions and stop trying to randomly generate extra documentation files that are not really needed and add a lot of hidden dependencies tend to break in several ways. Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/636202 Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/653300 Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/668232 Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/668350 Signed-off-by: Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org> Package-Manager: Portage-2.3.51, Repoman-2.3.11 .../sane-backends-1.0.27-revert-samsung.patch | 406 +++++++++++++++++++++ ...ne-backends-1.0.27-uninitialized-variable.patch | 25 ++ .../sane-backends/sane-backends-1.0.27-r2.ebuild | 344 +++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 775 insertions(+)
It's working now again with my Samsung SCX-4725FN, thank you! There's only one minor problem: it spends a long time scanning for devices, and it takes like half a minute to recognize the printer/scanner. Previous versions recognized the device immediately. Other than that, it's working fine.
Maybe that is caused by this fix: eapply "${FILESDIR}"/${PN}-1.0.27-uninitialized-variable.patch you can try commenting that line to see if it improves again
