It seems iscan-3 was packaged as a simple version upgrade over iscan-2. This is incorrect, as it is not a direct replacement. iscan-2 is the SANE epkowa backend, and iscan-3 is the SANE utsushi backend. They support different scanners and are not interchangeable. E.g. media-gfx/iscan-plugin-perfection-v370 does not work with iscan-3, only iscan-2. The upgrade broke my scanner. Arch Linux packages these as two distinct packages (iscan and imagescan): https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/SANE/Scanner-specific_problems#Epson Gentoo needs to either do the same, or slot the package and make it clear that users need to explicitly install iscan:2 or iscan:3 depending on what they need, and change the deps for the iscan plugins to depend on the right slot. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. emerge media-gfx/iscan media-gfx/iscan-plugin-perfection-v370 2. Try to use an Epson GT-S640 scanner Actual Results: Scanner does not work Expected Results: Scanner works
CCing dilfridge, who packaged iscan-3.
I have a better idea. I think iscan-3 should be renamed to utsushi. That is the name of the backend it installs as well as its binary name. For all intents and purposes, it's a completely different piece of software.
(In reply to Matthew Schultz from comment #2) > I have a better idea. I think iscan-3 should be renamed to utsushi. That > is the name of the backend it installs as well as its binary name. For all > intents and purposes, it's a completely different piece of software. We can do this, but atm I have no way to test. (The scanner is 2000km away in a different country.)
(In reply to Andreas K. Hüttel from comment #3) > (In reply to Matthew Schultz from comment #2) > > I have a better idea. I think iscan-3 should be renamed to utsushi. That > > is the name of the backend it installs as well as its binary name. For all > > intents and purposes, it's a completely different piece of software. > > We can do this, but atm I have no way to test. (The scanner is 2000km away > in a different country.) Well I look forward to when you can rename it then. Unfortunately I can't help with the testing since I only have an Epson V500 which only works with iscan 2.
Just pinging to make sure this doesn't fall by the wayside too badly. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help out here.
(In reply to Hector Martin from comment #5) > Just pinging to make sure this doesn't fall by the wayside too badly. Let me > know if there's anything I can do to help out here. First off, this should be reassigned. iscan-3 is completely different piece of software from iscan-2 and likely should have been named differently when it was created (utsushi perhaps). I have been maintaining iscan-2 for a while and I only have a scanner compatible with iscan-2 so I wouldn't have any way to test it. I'm also not the one who wrote and committed the iscan-3 ebuild in the first place. So I think there's probably a more appropriate person to assign this to.
I assume dilfridge@ is probably a better assignee here?
I just want to add my two cents that this *is* a real problem and that iscan-3 really *should* be renamed. My Epson Perfection V600 stopped working when I did what seemed to be a simple upgrade to iscan. Took some searching to find out that iscan-3's utsushi driver does not support the V600.
Indeed the only reference installed bits are making to 'iscan' at least by filename are produced by the ebuild. There's some precedence wrt 'utsushi' package name: https://repology.org/project/utsushi/versions
CCing marcin.deranek@slonko.net who is listed as the overall package maintaier.
I believe imagescan for iscan-3* would be more appropriate if we decide to rename it.
Does anyone know what else does it take to rename iscan-3 to imagescan except moving ebuilds/files around?
(In reply to Marcin Deranek from comment #12) > Does anyone know what else does it take to rename iscan-3 to imagescan > except moving ebuilds/files around? A news item is probably necessary for this. I'm not sure (can't check right now, but don't think so) that we can do partial renames do a news item + mask + what you said will be the way to go.
(In reply to Sam James from comment #13) > A news item is probably necessary for this. I'm not sure (can't check right > now, but don't think so) that we can do partial renames do a news item + > mask + what you said will be the way to go. If partial rename is not possible than probably slotting is the next best option (still keeping some technical debt). What about just moving iscan-3.* to a new imagescan-3.* package? That would be the best in terms of place we want to be, but probably not the most transparent way of moving from the place we are right now for the users. Any comments / suggestions on potentially the best way out of this?
(In reply to Marcin Deranek from comment #14) > (In reply to Sam James from comment #13) > > A news item is probably necessary for this. I'm not sure (can't check right > > now, but don't think so) that we can do partial renames do a news item + > > mask + what you said will be the way to go. > > If partial rename is not possible than probably slotting is the next best > option (still keeping some technical debt). > > What about just moving iscan-3.* to a new imagescan-3.* package? That would > be the best in terms of place we want to be, but probably not the most > transparent way of moving from the place we are right now for the users. > Any comments / suggestions on potentially the best way out of this? I think your latter idea is best: 1. Mask >=iscan-3 2. Create imagescan as a new package 3. News item (which shows when users have iscan-3 installed, maybe iscan entirely given some will have been worrying about this) 4. Pray? :) I can help you with all of this, of course. Reply is bit short because on mobile but can try give info on news item later.
(In reply to Sam James from comment #15) > I can help you with all of this, of course. Reply is bit short because on > mobile but can try give info on news item later. I can do some work on creating MR for imagescan-3 although that will take place in January (currently I'm on vacation). Extra factor (which can complicate things) is iscan-plugin-network-nt. There used to be version which was compatible with iscan-2, but it was removed (#719470). Current seems to be only compatible with imagescan-3, but I cannot confirm that as I do not have iscan-2 compatible hardware. From the comment in the bug it looks like I am correct.
(In reply to Sam James from comment #15) > I think your latter idea is best: > 1. Mask >=iscan-3 > 2. Create imagescan as a new package > 3. News item (which shows when users have iscan-3 installed, maybe iscan > entirely given some will have been worrying about this) > 4. Pray? :) > > I can help you with all of this, of course. Reply is bit short because on > mobile but can try give info on news item later. Preliminary pull request is ready. It does the following: 1. Copy iscan as imagescan and iscan-plugin-network-nt as imagescan-plugin-network-nt 2. Masks >=iscan-3 and >=iscan-plugin-network-nt-1.1.3 3 Restores previous iscan-plugin-network-nt (along with the license) which is compatible with iscan-2*
Created new pull request https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/pull/24015 where steps 2 & 3 are skipped.
