this is an up to date F-16/64 bit computer. I reported last week that my trusty HP 5370 scanner didn't work, finally concluding that it must have met it's end. Today I received a new Canon LIDE 110 which according to a Sane list I found is supposed to work. It does not, lsusb shows:
[bobg@box6 ~]$ lsusb Bus 001 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0002 Linux Foundation 2.0 root hub Bus 002 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0001 Linux Foundation 1.1 root hub Bus 003 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0001 Linux Foundation 1.1 root hub Bus 004 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0001 Linux Foundation 1.1 root hub Bus 005 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0001 Linux Foundation 1.1 root hub Bus 001 Device 003: ID 04a9:1909 Canon, Inc. CanoScan LiDE 110 Bus 002 Device 002: ID 046d:c408 Logitech, Inc. Marble Mouse (4-button)
Fedora still reports "no devices available" the same as with the HP 5370. I suppose that it's possible that the required driver is not included in Fedora-16 but I don't know how to determine what is, at least I haven't yet.
This is one of those things that usually just works and now it's becoming a science project! Am I the only one with this problem. I have two F-16/64 computers and both respond the same way.
Help would be greatly appreciated.
Bob
On 02/23/2012 12:09 PM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
I suppose that it's possible that the required driver is not included in Fedora-16 but I don't know how to determine what is, at least I haven't yet.
You probably want to check the Linux hardware compatibility lists at http://www.linux-drivers.org/ because if you need a special driver, there's probably a link to it.
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:09:25 -0500, BG (Bob) wrote:
this is an up to date F-16/64 bit computer. I reported last week that my trusty HP 5370 scanner didn't work, finally concluding that it must have met it's end. Today I received a new Canon LIDE 110 which according to a Sane list I found is supposed to work. It does not, lsusb shows:
The Canon LIDE 110 is a scanner that does work with F-16 x86_64.
Help would be greatly appreciated.
Anything suspicious in /var/log/message about the scanner? What do you get for "rpm -qa *sane*"?
On 23/02/12 16:35, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 15:09:25 -0500, BG (Bob) wrote:
this is an up to date F-16/64 bit computer. I reported last week that my trusty HP 5370 scanner didn't work, finally concluding that it must have met it's end. Today I received a new Canon LIDE 110 which according to a Sane list I found is supposed to work. It does not, lsusb shows:The Canon LIDE 110 is a scanner that does work with F-16 x86_64.
Help would be greatly appreciated.Anything suspicious in /var/log/message about the scanner? What do you get for "rpm -qa *sane*"?
Yes, I consulted a compatibility list and based the selection of the Canon on that. There's little doubt the HP will still work too once we find the cause of the problem. The HP has a separate power supply [wall wart]. I was surprised to see that the canon depends on USB for power, I didn't realize that when I ordered it but they seem to think it works.
Nothing here?
[bobg@box6 ~]$ /var/log/message bash: /var/log/message: No such file or directory
Something here:
[bobg@box6 ~]$ rpm -qa *sane xsane-0.998-4.fc16.x86_64
I guess that just shows that xsane is there?
Bob
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:13:23 -0500, BG (Bob) wrote:
[bobg@box6 ~]$ /var/log/message bash: /var/log/message: No such file or directory
It's /var/log/messages sorry for the typo in my earlier reply. Have you really not taken a look at that file before?
Something here: [bobg@box6 ~]$ rpm -qa \*sane xsane-0.998-4.fc16.x86_64 I guess that just shows that xsane is there?
rpm -qa *sane*
is the command I suggested. Alternatively: rpm -qa|grep sane
On 23/02/12 17:24, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:13:23 -0500, BG (Bob) wrote:
[bobg@box6 ~]$ /var/log/message bash: /var/log/message: No such file or directoryIt's /var/log/messages sorry for the typo in my earlier reply. Have you really not taken a look at that file before?
Ok, /var/log/messages most recent stuff but I tried xsane at 17:43:30 and nothing shows after the last line below:
Feb 23 17:37:41 box6 dbus-daemon[765]: dbus[765]: [system] Activating service name='net.reactivated.Fprint' (using servicehelper) Feb 23 17:37:41 box6 dbus[765]: [system] Activating service name='net.reactivated.Fprint' (using servicehelper) Feb 23 17:37:41 box6 dbus-daemon[765]: Launching FprintObject Feb 23 17:37:41 box6 dbus-daemon[765]: dbus[765]: [system] Successfully activated service 'net.reactivated.Fprint' Feb 23 17:37:41 box6 dbus[765]: [system] Successfully activated service 'net.reactivated.Fprint' Feb 23 17:37:41 box6 dbus-daemon[765]: ** Message: D-Bus service launched with name: net.reactivated.Fprint Feb 23 17:37:41 box6 dbus-daemon[765]: ** Message: entering main loop Feb 23 17:38:12 box6 dbus-daemon[765]: ** Message: No devices in use, exit
Something here:
[bobg@box6 ~]$ rpm -qa *sane xsane-0.998-4.fc16.x86_64
I guess that just shows that xsane is there?
rpm -qa *sane*
is the command I suggested. Alternatively: rpm -qa|grep sane
Sorry, I copy/pasted and didn't get the entire command -
[bobg@box6 ~]$ rpm -qa *sane* libsane-hpaio-3.11.12-1.fc16.x86_64 sane-backends-drivers-cameras-1.0.22-8.fc16.x86_64 xsane-0.998-4.fc16.x86_64 sane-backends-libs-1.0.22-8.fc16.x86_64 xsane-common-0.998-4.fc16.x86_64 sane-backends-1.0.22-8.fc16.x86_64
On Thu, 23 Feb 2012 17:45:46 -0500, BG (Bob) wrote:
[bobg@box6 ~]$ rpm -qa \*sane\* libsane-hpaio-3.11.12-1.fc16.x86_64 sane-backends-drivers-cameras-1.0.22-8.fc16.x86_64 xsane-0.998-4.fc16.x86_64 sane-backends-libs-1.0.22-8.fc16.x86_64 xsane-common-0.998-4.fc16.x86_64 sane-backends-1.0.22-8.fc16.x86_64
yum -y install sane-backends-drivers-scanners
There's something in the package dependencies that doesn't look correct. Since the split-off of the -cameras and -scanners subpackages, nothing depends on these separate packages anymore. They are installed only for the default GNOME Desktop Spin via the "comps" file.
On 24/02/12 02:25, Michael Schwendt wrote:
yum -y install sane-backends-drivers-scanners
Did that, still no device found!
However for the first time ever I ignored the warning not to run as root and xsane found the Canon LIDE-110 scanner and copied as expected! A permissions problem?
That was on this computer, box6.
Box9 showed "sane-backends-drivers-scanners already installed?"
Box9, as root, found the HP-5370 scanner and copied a page as expected.
As a matter of interest, my installs are from the XFCE spin on a flash drive. I then add the applications I want via yum mostly. Don't know why this computer was different from the other but I may have inadvertently removed something?
Next to find the permissions problem but this is good progress for this early hour when I should be sleeping.
Thanks much for your expert help.
Bob
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 05:33:44 -0500, BG (Bob) wrote:
yum -y install sane-backends-drivers-scanners
Did that, still no device found!
If the scanner is plugged in, what do you get when running the /usr/bin/sane-find-scanner command in a terminal?
However for the first time ever I ignored the warning not to run as root and xsane found the Canon LIDE-110 scanner and copied as expected! A permissions problem?
Very likely. If you run "lsusb" as root with the scanner being plugged in, what Bus/Device numbers does it print? For example:
Bus 001 Device 004: ID 04a9:1909 Canon, Inc. CanoScan LiDE 110 ^^^ ^^^ If you then substitute your Bus/Device numbers in the following command appropriately, what do you get when you execute it?
getfacl /dev/bus/usb/001/004 ^^^ ^^^ (!)
As a matter of interest, my installs are from the XFCE spin on a
Which may be an important detail. There's another list for XFCE: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/xfce/ It could be that the XFCE Spin is missing something in its setup.
On 24/02/12 06:34, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 05:33:44 -0500, BG (Bob) wrote:
yum -y install sane-backends-drivers-scanners
Did that, still no device found!If the scanner is plugged in, what do you get when running the /usr/bin/sane-find-scanner command in a terminal?
found USB scanner (vendor=0x04a9, product=0x1909, chip=GL124?) at libusb:001:006 # Your USB scanner was (probably) detected. It may or may not be supported by # SANE. Try scanimage -L and read the backend's manpage.
However for the first time ever I ignored the warning not to run as root and xsane found the Canon LIDE-110 scanner and copied as expected! A permissions problem?Very likely. If you run "lsusb" as root with the scanner being plugged in, what Bus/Device numbers does it print? For example:
Bus 001 Device 004: ID 04a9:1909 Canon, Inc. CanoScan LiDE 110 ^^^ ^^^
Bus 001 Device 006: ID 04a9:1909 Canon, Inc. CanoScan LiDE 110
If you then substitute your Bus/Device numbers in the following command appropriately, what do you get when you execute it?
getfacl /dev/bus/usb/001/004 ^^^ ^^^ (!)
[bobg@box6 ~]$ getfacl /dev/bus/usb/001/006 getfacl: Removing leading '/' from absolute path names # file: dev/bus/usb/001/006 # owner: root # group: root user::rw- group::rw- other::r--
[bobg@box6 ~]$ ll /dev/bus/usb/001/006 crw-rw-r--. 1 root root 189, 5 Feb 24 05:18 /dev/bus/usb/001/006
Do I need to chown bobg here? It looks like it ought to work as is for bobg with 664 ownership?
As a matter of interest, my installs are from the XFCE spin on aWhich may be an important detail. There's another list for XFCE: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/xfce/ It could be that the XFCE Spin is missing something in its setup.
Ok will look there later.
Thank you.
Bob .
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:16:43 -0500, BG (Bob) wrote:
[bobg@box6 ~]$ getfacl /dev/bus/usb/001/006 getfacl: Removing leading '/' from absolute path names # file: dev/bus/usb/001/006 # owner: root # group: root user::rw- group::rw- other::r--
The user access ACL entry is missing. That explains why your ordinary user cannot access the device. (I assume that udev and systemd work fine on your machine, or have you noticed issues that might be relevant?)
Do I need to chown bobg here? It looks like it ought to work as is for bobg with 664 ownership?
That won't survive a reboot, and when removing+readding the device the problem would reappear.
Do you run with SELinux enabled and enforcing? Do you get denials in /var/log/audit/audit.log? (it could be that XFCE doesn't run the SELinux troubleshooter, so you would not learn about SELinux problems) What happens if you switch to "permissive mode" temporarily (either at boot time) or by running "setenforce 0" as root, then plug in the scanner?
On 24/02/12 08:50, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:16:43 -0500, BG (Bob) wrote:
[bobg@box6 ~]$ getfacl /dev/bus/usb/001/006 getfacl: Removing leading '/' from absolute path names # file: dev/bus/usb/001/006 # owner: root # group: root user::rw- group::rw- other::r--The user access ACL entry is missing. That explains why your ordinary user cannot access the device. (I assume that udev and systemd work fine on your machine, or have you noticed issues that might be relevant?)
Do I need to chown bobg here? It looks like it ought to work as is for bobg with 664 ownership?That won't survive a reboot, and when removing+readding the device the problem would reappear.
Do you run with SELinux enabled and enforcing?
Yes
Do you get denials in /var/log/audit/audit.log? (it could be that XFCE doesn't run the SELinux troubleshooter, so you would not learn about SELinux problems)
I don't get any SELinux warnings but then I don't know if that function is working either. The log data is overwhelming! I see nothing that seems to pertain to "sane." But I could have missed it ... I tried checking the end of the log immediately after xsane errored, saw nothing I recognized as a problem, but would I?
What happens if you switch to "permissive mode" temporarily (either at boot time) or by running "setenforce 0" as root, then plug in the scanner?
Did that, unplug scanner, run setenforce 0, plug in scanner and try "xsane" again, same error, device not available. Is there a command to verify it's actually switched to permissive? There's so much to know!
Is there something I need to enable under "Users and Groups" possibly? I looked there but didn't see anything I recognized as applicable?
Bob
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 02/24/2012 09:34 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
On 24/02/12 08:50, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:16:43 -0500, BG (Bob) wrote:
[bobg@box6 ~]$ getfacl /dev/bus/usb/001/006 getfacl: Removing leading '/' from absolute path names # file: dev/bus/usb/001/006 # owner: root # group: root user::rw- group::rw- other::r--
The user access ACL entry is missing. That explains why your ordinary user cannot access the device. (I assume that udev and systemd work fine on your machine, or have you noticed issues that might be relevant?)
Do I need to chown bobg here? It looks like it ought to work as is for bobg with 664 ownership?
That won't survive a reboot, and when removing+readding the device the problem would reappear.
Do you run with SELinux enabled and enforcing?
Yes
Do you get denials in /var/log/audit/audit.log? (it could be that XFCE doesn't run the SELinux troubleshooter, so you would not learn about SELinux problems)
I don't get any SELinux warnings but then I don't know if that function is working either. The log data is overwhelming! I see nothing that seems to pertain to "sane." But I could have missed it ... I tried checking the end of the log immediately after xsane errored, saw nothing I recognized as a problem, but would I?
What happens if you switch to "permissive mode" temporarily (either at boot time) or by running "setenforce 0" as root, then plug in the scanner?
Did that, unplug scanner, run setenforce 0, plug in scanner and try "xsane" again, same error, device not available. Is there a command to verify it's actually switched to permissive? There's so much to know!
Is there something I need to enable under "Users and Groups" possibly? I looked there but didn't see anything I recognized as applicable?
Bob
getenforce
I doubt there is a SELinux problem if this a happens in permissive mode.
ausearch -m avc -ts recent
On 24/02/12 10:32, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 02/24/2012 09:34 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote:
Did that, unplug scanner, run setenforce 0, plug in scanner and try "xsane" again, same error, device not available. Is there a command to verify it's actually switched to permissive? There's so much to know!
Is there something I need to enable under "Users and Groups" possibly? I looked there but didn't see anything I recognized as applicable?
Bob
getenforce
I doubt there is a SELinux problem if this a happens in permissive mode.
ausearch -m avc -ts recent
"getenforce" is what I needed to instill confidence in the command.
[root@box6 usb]# setenforce 0
[root@box6 usb]# getenforce Permissive
Tried plugging in both [USB] scanners with same result, device is not available.
[root@box6 usb]# ausearch -m avc -ts recent <no matches>
That seems to indicate there's no SELinux problem.
Thanks Dan,
Bob
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:10:26 -0500, BG (Bob) wrote:
[root@box6 usb]# getenforce Permissive Tried plugging in both [USB] scanners with same result, device is not available. [root@box6 usb]# ausearch -m avc -ts recent <no matches> That seems to indicate there's no SELinux problem.
Okay. I'm running out of ideas as currently I don't have XFCE running anywhere to take a look. Perhaps something's missing in the XFCE setup?
What does "systemd-loginctl" print (as root or normal user)?
Do you see messages about attaching/removing the scanner when you keep "udevadm monitor" running in a terminal as root?
What is the output for: rpm -qa systemd*
On 24/02/12 11:24, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:10:26 -0500, BG (Bob) wrote:
[root@box6 usb]# getenforce Permissive Tried plugging in both [USB] scanners with same result, device is not available. [root@box6 usb]# ausearch -m avc -ts recent <no matches> That seems to indicate there's no SELinux problem.Okay. I'm running out of ideas as currently I don't have XFCE running anywhere to take a look. Perhaps something's missing in the XFCE setup?
Not surprised, you've done good so far! I'm lost but at least I know I can scan as root if need be.
What does "systemd-loginctl" print (as root or normal user)?
[root@box6 usb]# systemd-loginctl SESSION UID USER SEAT 1 1000 bobg seat0
[bobg@box6 ~]$ systemd-loginctl SESSION UID USER SEAT 1 1000 bobg seat0
Do you see messages about attaching/removing the scanner when you keep "udevadm monitor" running in a terminal as root?
[root@box6 usb]# udevadm monitor monitor will print the received events for: UDEV - the event which udev sends out after rule processing KERNEL - the kernel uevent
KERNEL[26717.742139] remove /devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1d.7/usb1/1-2/1-2:1.0 (usb) KERNEL[26717.743871] remove /devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1d.7/usb1/1-2 (usb) UDEV [26717.745828] remove /devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1d.7/usb1/1-2/1-2:1.0 (usb) UDEV [26717.748651] remove /devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1d.7/usb1/1-2 (usb) KERNEL[26726.796935] add /devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1d.7/usb1/1-2 (usb) KERNEL[26726.799381] add /devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1d.7/usb1/1-2/1-2:1.0 (usb) UDEV [26726.821045] add /devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1d.7/usb1/1-2 (usb) UDEV [26726.846638] add /devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1d.7/usb1/1-2/1-2:1.0 (usb)
What is the output for: rpm -qa systemd*
[root@box6 usb]# rpm -qa systemd* systemd-sysv-37-13.fc16.x86_64 systemd-37-13.fc16.x86_64 systemd-units-37-13.fc16.x86_64
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:40:10 -0500, BG (Bob) wrote:
What is the output for: rpm -qa systemd*
[root@box6 usb]# rpm -qa systemd\* systemd-sysv-37-13.fc16.x86_64 systemd-37-13.fc16.x86_64 systemd-units-37-13.fc16.x86_64
What does
ps axuw|grep bus
print? In particular, I'm interested in the dbus-daemon processes.
On 24/02/12 11:43, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:40:10 -0500, BG (Bob) wrote:
What is the output for: rpm -qa systemd*
[root@box6 usb]# rpm -qa systemd\* systemd-sysv-37-13.fc16.x86_64 systemd-37-13.fc16.x86_64 systemd-units-37-13.fc16.x86_64What does
ps axuw|grep bus
print? In particular, I'm interested in the dbus-daemon processes.
[root@box6 usb]# ps axuw|grep bus dbus 752 0.0 0.0 96412 2600 ? Ssl 04:09 0:00 /bin/dbus-daemon --system --address=systemd: --nofork --systemd-activation bobg 1140 0.0 0.0 22352 496 ? S 04:11 0:00 dbus-launch --sh-syntax --exit-with-session bobg 1141 0.0 0.0 96860 2056 ? Ssl 04:11 0:10 /bin/dbus-daemon --fork --print-pid 5 --print-address 7 --session root 3329 0.0 0.0 109244 848 pts/3 S+ 11:49 0:00 grep --color=auto bus
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 05:33:44AM -0500, Bob Goodwin wrote:
On 24/02/12 02:25, Michael Schwendt wrote:
yum -y install sane-backends-drivers-scanners
Did that, still no device found! However for the first time ever I ignored the warning not to run as root and xsane found the Canon LIDE-110 scanner and copied as expected! A permissions problem? That was on this computer, box6. Box9 showed "sane-backends-drivers-scanners already installed?" Box9, as root, found the HP-5370 scanner and copied a page as expected. As a matter of interest, my installs are from the XFCE spin on a flash drive. I then add the applications I want via yum mostly. Don't know why this computer was different from the other but I may have inadvertently removed something? Next to find the permissions problem but this is good progress for this early hour when I should be sleeping. Thanks much for your expert help. Bob-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
There is a simple way to overcome this limitation. Find out what bus the printer/scanner is on with lsusb. Then go into /dev/bus/usb and change the permissions of the bus/device that you need access to.
Terry
On 24/02/12 17:44, ny6p01@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 05:33:44AM -0500, Bob Goodwin wrote:
On 24/02/12 02:25, Michael Schwendt wrote:
yum -y install sane-backends-drivers-scanners
Did that, still no device found! However for the first time ever I ignored the warning not to run as root and xsane found the Canon LIDE-110 scanner and copied as expected! A permissions problem? That was on this computer, box6. Box9 showed "sane-backends-drivers-scanners already installed?" Box9, as root, found the HP-5370 scanner and copied a page as expected. As a matter of interest, my installs are from the XFCE spin on a flash drive. I then add the applications I want via yum mostly. Don't know why this computer was different from the other but I may have inadvertently removed something? Next to find the permissions problem but this is good progress for this early hour when I should be sleeping. Thanks much for your expert help. Bob-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
There is a simple way to overcome this limitation. Find out what bus the printer/scanner is on with lsusb. Then go into /dev/bus/usb and change the permissions of the bus/device that you need access to.
Terry
That's what I thought too.
[bobg@box6 ~]$ lsusb Bus 001 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0002 Linux Foundation 2.0 root hub Bus 002 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0001 Linux Foundation 1.1 root hub Bus 003 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0001 Linux Foundation 1.1 root hub Bus 004 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0001 Linux Foundation 1.1 root hub Bus 005 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0001 Linux Foundation 1.1 root hub Bus 001 Device 012: ID 04a9:1909 Canon, Inc. CanoScan LiDE 110 Bus 002 Device 002: ID 046d:c408 Logitech, Inc. Marble Mouse (4-button)
So I tried changing permissions and then owner.
[root@box6 usb]# ll total 0 drwxrwxr-x. 2 bobg root 80 Feb 24 11:34 001 drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 80 Feb 24 10:58 002 drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 60 Feb 24 04:09 003 drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 60 Feb 24 04:09 004 drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 60 Feb 24 04:09 005
There's still "no device available" for user bobg.
Root works, not user.
And even if that did work the device changes whenever I plug in the scanner, not sure what effect that will have?
Bob
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:07:02 -0500, BG (Bob) wrote:
On 24/02/12 17:44, ny6p01@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 05:33:44AM -0500, Bob Goodwin wrote:
There is a simple way to overcome this limitation. Find out what bus the printer/scanner is on with lsusb. Then go into /dev/bus/usb and change the permissions of the bus/device that you need access to.
Terry
The device file path varies.
That's what I thought too. [bobg@box6 ~]$ lsusb Bus 001 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0002 Linux Foundation 2.0 root hub Bus 002 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0001 Linux Foundation 1.1 root hub Bus 003 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0001 Linux Foundation 1.1 root hub Bus 004 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0001 Linux Foundation 1.1 root hub Bus 005 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0001 Linux Foundation 1.1 root hub Bus 001 Device 012: ID 04a9:1909 Canon, Inc. CanoScan LiDE 110
^^^ ^^^
Bus 002 Device 002: ID 046d:c408 Logitech, Inc. Marble Mouse (4-button) So I tried changing permissions and then owner. [root@box6 usb]# ll total 0 drwxrwxr-x. 2 bobg root 80 Feb 24 11:34 001 drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 80 Feb 24 10:58 002 drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 60 Feb 24 04:09 003 drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 60 Feb 24 04:09 004 drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 60 Feb 24 04:09 005
That's the wrong file. The device file would have been '012' in that directory.
I've done a "yum groupinstall XFCE" here for a very brief test, but when logging into XFCE (albeit from GDM), the user access ACL entry on the device file is set automatically when plugging in the scanner. So, that hasn't been enough to reproduce the problem.
Perhaps just the XFCE Spin is affected?
On 24/02/12 19:17, Michael Schwendt wrote:
That's the wrong file. The device file would have been '012' in that directory. I've done a "yum groupinstall XFCE" here for a very brief test, but when logging into XFCE (albeit from GDM), the user access ACL entry on the device file is set automatically when plugging in the scanner. So, that hasn't been enough to reproduce the problem. Perhaps just the XFCE Spin is affected?
Or just my copy? I installed both from the same flash drive. That seems improbable though. It also seems likely that others should have observed the same problem by now. Something else I have installed may have resulted in this?
I could install another drive in this computer temporarily and install F-16 to that from the same flash drive and see if it still has the problem before adding anything else. Can't do that until tomorrow though ...
Bob
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:05:33 -0500, BG (Bob) wrote:
Perhaps just the XFCE Spin is affected?
Or just my copy?
So, a default install to harddisk of the XFCE Spin (Fedora 16 x86_64) is not enough to reproduce the problem. ACLs on the device node get set. The test scanner is listed with exactly the same ID 04a9:1909. It's not a different model that would be detected as something else. USB scanner detection and access to the device works already without installing sane-backends-drivers-scanners (which isn't installed by default).
I installed both from the same flash drive. That seems improbable though. It also seems likely that others should have observed the same problem by now. Something else I have installed may have resulted in this?
More basic trouble-shooting might lead to finding something, but I won't propose further commands as they result in much more work for you with no guarantee that something will be found. With "basic" I mean things like verifying the RPM database for package inconsistencies and taking a look at boot messages (possibly disabling "rhgb quiet" or enabling Plymouth theme "detailed") and for suspicious warnings/errors in the syslog.
It's an interesting case, though. :) Something between udev and systemd doesn't work as expected. And for two of your machines even. *ouch*
On 26/02/12 08:22, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:05:33 -0500, BG (Bob) wrote:
Perhaps just the XFCE Spin is affected?
Or just my copy?So, a default install to harddisk of the XFCE Spin (Fedora 16 x86_64) is not enough to reproduce the problem. ACLs on the device node get set. The test scanner is listed with exactly the same ID 04a9:1909. It's not a different model that would be detected as something else. USB scanner detection and access to the device works already without installing sane-backends-drivers-scanners (which isn't installed by default).
I installed both from the same flash drive. That seems improbable though. It also seems likely that others should have observed the same problem by now. Something else I have installed may have resulted in this?More basic trouble-shooting might lead to finding something, but I won't propose further commands as they result in much more work for you with no guarantee that something will be found. With "basic" I mean things like verifying the RPM database for package inconsistencies and taking a look at boot messages (possibly disabling "rhgb quiet" or enabling Plymouth theme "detailed") and for suspicious warnings/errors in the syslog.
It's an interesting case, though. :) Something between udev and systemd doesn't work as expected. And for two of your machines even. *ouch*
Yes, but the live spin install is the starting point for a a Linux system that I then configure to make things work and look the way I want it to be. The only non-yum application I can think of at the moment is "gnofin" [gnofin-0.8.4-1.i386.rpm] which I have used for a long time but that has never caused a problem. It does have some i386 dependencies that I have to add. Both computers are set up as near identical as I can make them and I can use them interchangeably so I would expect to see the same peculiarities on both.
I always have "rhgb disabled" and display as much information as I can get, use the "text log-in", start from the command line with "startx" every morning, however the start up information is displayed in a very small font which requires considerable effort for me to read and it goes by rapidly. I do know that it "stumbles" at connecting to NFS and sometimes doesn't requiring me to connect manually later. Those are minor problems, probably impossible for the average user to solve, but easy enough to work around.
I've looked at "dmesg" which is a large file but don't see anything I recognize as a problem, but then I not very knowledgeable there and not certain what I should be looking for.
Bob
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:52:40 -0500, BG (Bob) wrote:
I always have "rhgb disabled" and display as much information as I can get, use the "text log-in", start from the command line with "startx" every morning,
Congratulations, you've just found a test-case! :-) Run-level 3 boot plus startx are enough to reproduce the problem (with XFCE at least).
On 26/02/12 11:20, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2012 09:52:40 -0500, BG (Bob) wrote:
I always have "rhgb disabled" and display as much information as I can get, use the "text log-in", start from the command line with "startx" every morning,Congratulations, you've just found a test-case! :-) " boot plus startx are enough to reproduce the problem (with XFCE at least).
Well then it is a problem caused by configuration changes I made, but those are things I've done for a number of Fedora versions, in fact I believe I became accustomed to "Run-level 3" with RH-5.2 and can't recall ever using the graphic log-in any longer than necessary beyond perhaps initial start-up.
I should have mentioned that with F-16 I decided not to use LVM either, created directories instead.
Anyway I'm not going to go restore the original log-in to get xsane to run as a user. I'm not sure where to go next or if it's even worth further effort, chances are it will be different again with F-17.
Bob
.
On 27 February 2012 20:43, Bob Goodwin bobgoodwin@wildblue.net wrote:
I always have "rhgb disabled" and display as much information as I can get, use the "text log-in", start from the command line with "startx" every morning,
Congratulations, you've just found a test-case! :-) " boot plus
startx are enough to reproduce the problem (with XFCE at least).
Well then it is a problem caused by configuration changes I made, but those are things I've done for a number of Fedora versions, in fact I believe I became accustomed to "Run-level 3" with RH-5.2 and can't recall ever using the graphic log-in any longer than necessary beyond perhaps initial start-up.
Yeah, systemd seat/session management is new, and ConsoleKit will be removed in F-17. When using startx, you will notice that your session is not listed as "active", and hence systemd-uaccess doesn't change the device node acls when you're in XFCE. There are a couple of open bug reports, not limited to these:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=684158 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769649
Further reading: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ckremoval
On 27/02/12 17:56, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On 27 February 2012 20:43, Bob Goodwinbobgoodwin@wildblue.net wrote:
I always have "rhgb disabled" and display as much information as I can get, use the "text log-in", start from the command line with "startx" every morning,Congratulations, you've just found a test-case! :-) " boot plus
startx are enough to reproduce the problem (with XFCE at least).
Well then it is a problem caused by configuration changes I made, but those are things I've done for a number of Fedora versions, in fact I believe I became accustomed to "Run-level 3" with RH-5.2 and can't recall ever using the graphic log-in any longer than necessary beyond perhaps initial start-up.Yeah, systemd seat/session management is new, and ConsoleKit will be removed in F-17. When using startx, you will notice that your session is not listed as "active", and hence systemd-uaccess doesn't change the device node acls when you're in XFCE. There are a couple of open bug reports, not limited to these:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=684158 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769649
Further reading: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ckremoval
I won't be able to reply here or read fedora-list for a week.
Ok, Thanks for all the help.
I will go through the references provided and perhaps understand better.
Bob
On 24/02/12 19:17, Michael Schwendt wrote:
That's the wrong file. The device file would have been '012' in that directory. I've done a "yum groupinstall XFCE" here for a very brief test, but when logging into XFCE (albeit from GDM), the user access ACL entry on the device file is set automatically when plugging in the scanner. So, that hasn't been enough to reproduce the problem. Perhaps just the XFCE Spin is affected?
In an off-list discussion with "g" I realized that I could run another "virgin" instance of F-16/64 from the XFCE Live Spin on the flash drive, the same one these installations are derived from. Why did it take so long to think of that? Old age perhaps?
I had to install xsane, tried that, got the same error message about no device available until I installed "yum -y install sane-backends-drivers-scanners."
Once that was done on box9 the HP-5370c scanner works as User bobg as it always has.
That seems to bear out the hypothesis that something else I've installed is interfering with xsane.
Perhaps yum removing and re-installing sane is the next thing to try if yum remove doesn't take out other peripheral stuff that is needed elsewhere.
Bob
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 08:21:11 -0500, BG (Bob) wrote:
In an off-list discussion with "g" I realized that I could run another "virgin" instance of F-16/64 from the XFCE Live Spin on the flash drive, the same one these installations are derived from. Why did it take so long to think of that? Old age perhaps? I had to install xsane, tried that, got the same error message about no device available until I installed "yum -y install sane-backends-drivers-scanners." Once that was done on box9 the HP-5370c scanner works as User bobg as it always has.
I've just learned that systemd would log an error when it fails to set the device node ACL. So,
grep ACL /var/log/messages
should tell. If no such messages related to your scanner USB device turn up, the OS has failed earlier.
On 25/02/12 17:13, Michael Schwendt wrote:
grep ACL /var/log/messages
. That produces no output:
[root@box6 bobg]# grep ACL /var/log/messages [root@box6 bobg]#
But I do see the following at the end of /var/log/messages:
Feb 25 17:38:08 box6 dbus-daemon[752]: dbus[752]: [system] Activating service name='net.reactivated.Fprint' (using servicehelper) Feb 25 17:38:08 box6 dbus[752]: [system] Activating service name='net.reactivated.Fprint' (using servicehelper) Feb 25 17:38:08 box6 dbus-daemon[752]: Launching FprintObject Feb 25 17:38:08 box6 dbus-daemon[752]: dbus[752]: [system] Successfully activated service 'net.reactivated.Fprint' Feb 25 17:38:08 box6 dbus[752]: [system] Successfully activated service 'net.reactivated.Fprint' Feb 25 17:38:08 box6 dbus-daemon[752]: ** Message: D-Bus service launched with name: net.reactivated.Fprint Feb 25 17:38:08 box6 dbus-daemon[752]: ** Message: entering main loop Feb 25 17:38:38 box6 dbus-daemon[752]: ** Message: No devices in use, exit
And I wonder what "No devices in use" refers to?
I need to try Installing from a different source, not the XFCE Live Spin, but I can't afford the bandwidth this week, my usage is too high, around 70% of my allowance on this ISP.
I can still use the scanner as root and don't need it everyday, often not for a month. Guess I can live with that for a while.
Thanks,
Bob
.
On Sat, 25 Feb 2012 18:19:56 -0500, BG (Bob) wrote:
But I do see the following at the end of /var/log/messages: Feb 25 17:38:08 box6 dbus-daemon[752]: dbus[752]: [system] Activating service name='net.reactivated.Fprint' (using servicehelper) Feb 25 17:38:08 box6 dbus[752]: [system] Activating service name='net.reactivated.Fprint' (using servicehelper) Feb 25 17:38:08 box6 dbus-daemon[752]: Launching FprintObject Feb 25 17:38:08 box6 dbus-daemon[752]: dbus[752]: [system] Successfully activated service 'net.reactivated.Fprint' Feb 25 17:38:08 box6 dbus[752]: [system] Successfully activated service 'net.reactivated.Fprint' Feb 25 17:38:08 box6 dbus-daemon[752]: ** Message: D-Bus service launched with name: net.reactivated.Fprint Feb 25 17:38:08 box6 dbus-daemon[752]: ** Message: entering main loop Feb 25 17:38:38 box6 dbus-daemon[752]: ** Message: No devices in use, exit
Those are related to you running "su".
On 24/02/12 19:17, Michael Schwendt wrote:
That's the wrong file. The device file would have been '012' in that directory. I've done a "yum groupinstall XFCE" here for a very brief test, but when logging into XFCE (albeit from GDM), the user access ACL entry on the device file is set automatically when plugging in the scanner. So, that hasn't been enough to reproduce the problem. Perhaps just the XFCE Spin is affected?
In an off-list discussion with "g" I realized that I could run another "virgin" instance of F-16/64 from the XFCE Live Spin on the flash drive, the same one these installations are derived from. Why did it take so long to think of that? Old age perhaps?
I had to install xsane, tried that, got the same error message about no device available until I installed "yum -y install sane-backends-drivers-scanners."
Once that was done on box9 the HP-5370c scanner works as User bobg as it always has.
That seems to bear out the hypothesis that something else I've installed is interfering with xsane.
Perhaps yum removing and re-installing sane is the next thing to try if yum remove doesn't take out other peripheral stuff that is needed elsewhere.
Bob
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 06:07:02PM -0500, Bob Goodwin wrote:
On 24/02/12 17:44, ny6p01@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 05:33:44AM -0500, Bob Goodwin wrote:
On 24/02/12 02:25, Michael Schwendt wrote:
yum -y install sane-backends-drivers-scanners
Did that, still no device found! However for the first time ever I ignored the warning not to run as root and xsane found the Canon LIDE-110 scanner and copied as expected! A permissions problem? That was on this computer, box6. Box9 showed "sane-backends-drivers-scanners already installed?" Box9, as root, found the HP-5370 scanner and copied a page as expected. As a matter of interest, my installs are from the XFCE spin on a flash drive. I then add the applications I want via yum mostly. Don't know why this computer was different from the other but I may have inadvertently removed something? Next to find the permissions problem but this is good progress for this early hour when I should be sleeping. Thanks much for your expert help. Bob-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
There is a simple way to overcome this limitation. Find out what bus the printer/scanner is on with lsusb. Then go into /dev/bus/usb and change the permissions of the bus/device that you need access to.
Terry
That's what I thought too. [bobg@box6 ~]$ lsusb Bus 001 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0002 Linux Foundation 2.0 root hub Bus 002 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0001 Linux Foundation 1.1 root hub Bus 003 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0001 Linux Foundation 1.1 root hub Bus 004 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0001 Linux Foundation 1.1 root hub Bus 005 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0001 Linux Foundation 1.1 root hub Bus 001 Device 012: ID 04a9:1909 Canon, Inc. CanoScan LiDE 110 Bus 002 Device 002: ID 046d:c408 Logitech, Inc. Marble Mouse (4-button) So I tried changing permissions and then owner. [root@box6 usb]# ll total 0 drwxrwxr-x. 2 bobg root 80 Feb 24 11:34 001 drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 80 Feb 24 10:58 002 drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 60 Feb 24 04:09 003 drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 60 Feb 24 04:09 004 drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 60 Feb 24 04:09 005 There's still "no device available" for user bobg. Root works, not user. And even if that did work the device changes whenever I plug in the scanner, not sure what effect that will have?
Bob, you didn't descend deep enough, the change in mode needs to be made for the device, 12, under 001. HTH.
Terry
-
Bob Goodwin -
Daniel J Walsh -
Joe Zeff -
Lee -
Michael Schwendt