This was working until yesterday.
Now I if I try get:
An error occurred in the io-library ('Could not lock the device'). Camera is already in use.
The latter is certainly not true. And it will work ok on my MacBook Air. But obviously I prefer to use Linux.
Any clues? The camera is a Nikon D300.
On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 12:50 +0100, Colin Paul Adams wrote:
This was working until yesterday.
Now I if I try get:
An error occurred in the io-library ('Could not lock the device'). Camera is already in use.
The latter is certainly not true. And it will work ok on my MacBook Air. But obviously I prefer to use Linux.
Any clues? The camera is a Nikon D300.
You don't say what application you are using to access the camera.
poc
"Patrick" == Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com writes:
Patrick> On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 12:50 +0100, Colin Paul Adams wrote: >> This was working until yesterday. >> >> Now I if I try get: >> >> An error occurred in the io-library ('Could not lock the >> device'). Camera is already in use. >> >> The latter is certainly not true. And it will work ok on my >> MacBook Air. But obviously I prefer to use Linux. >> >> Any clues? The camera is a Nikon D300.
Patrick> You don't say what application you are using to access Patrick> the camera.
It doesn't make any difference.
I've tried both gThumbImageViewer anf Fspot.
On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 13:30 +0100, Colin Paul Adams wrote:
"Patrick" == Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com writes:
Patrick> On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 12:50 +0100, Colin Paul Adams wrote: >> This was working until yesterday. >> >> Now I if I try get: >> >> An error occurred in the io-library ('Could not lock the >> device'). Camera is already in use. >> >> The latter is certainly not true. And it will work ok on my >> MacBook Air. But obviously I prefer to use Linux. >> >> Any clues? The camera is a Nikon D300. Patrick> You don't say what application you are using to access Patrick> the camera.
It doesn't make any difference.
I've tried both gThumbImageViewer anf Fspot.
Cameras can be accessed in two different ways, either as a hard disk image, or using a built-in protocol (manufacturer-defined). Do both of these fail? Have you tried digikam? Is the camera connected via USB or Firewire? If USB, have you recently updated the libusb package (say within the last week or so)?
poc
"Patrick" == Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com writes:
Patrick> Cameras can be accessed in two different ways, either as Patrick> a hard disk image, or using a built-in protocol Patrick> (manufacturer-defined). Do both of these fail? Have you Patrick> tried digikam? Is the camera connected via USB or Patrick> Firewire? If USB, have you recently updated the libusb Patrick> package (say within the last week or so)?
I have only tried using USB-PTP.
I dare say libusb may well have been updated during the last week. It is currently at libusb-0.1.12-15.fc9.x86_64 .
"Colin" == Colin Paul Adams colin@colina.demon.co.uk writes:
Colin> I dare say libusb may well have been updated during the Colin> last week. It is currently at libusb-0.1.12-15.fc9.x86_64 .
If I do rpm -q -i on it it says the install date is in May. I suspect that is when I installed Fedora 9. But I don't see an update date.
On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 14:02 +0100, Colin Paul Adams wrote:
"Colin" == Colin Paul Adams colin@colina.demon.co.uk writes:
Colin> I dare say libusb may well have been updated during the Colin> last week. It is currently at libusb-0.1.12-15.fc9.x86_64 .
If I do rpm -q -i on it it says the install date is in May. I suspect that is when I installed Fedora 9. But I don't see an update date.
grep libusb /var/log/yum.log
poc
"Patrick" == Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com writes:
Patrick> On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 14:02 +0100, Colin Paul Adams wrote: >> >>>>> "Colin" == Colin Paul Adams colin@colina.demon.co.uk >> writes: >> Colin> I dare say libusb may well have been updated during the Colin> last week. It is currently at libusb-0.1.12-15.fc9.x86_64 . >> >> If I do rpm -q -i on it it says the install date is in May. I >> suspect that is when I installed Fedora 9. But I don't see an >> update date.
Patrick> grep libusb /var/log/yum.log
Nothing.
On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 13:53 +0100, Colin Paul Adams wrote:
"Patrick" == Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com writes:
Patrick> Cameras can be accessed in two different ways, either as Patrick> a hard disk image, or using a built-in protocol Patrick> (manufacturer-defined). Do both of these fail? Have you Patrick> tried digikam? Is the camera connected via USB or Patrick> Firewire? If USB, have you recently updated the libusb Patrick> package (say within the last week or so)?
I have only tried using USB-PTP.
I dare say libusb may well have been updated during the last week. It is currently at libusb-0.1.12-15.fc9.x86_64 .
AFAIK that's the latest one. The reason I asked is that there was a problem for a few days that affected CD burning and appeared also to affect other block devices, however I'm guessing that wouldn't touch PTP. In any case the latest libusb fixes it.
The most likely explanation is that there is a lock file lying around which shouldn't be there. Rebooting might get rid of it, or you could poke around in /tmp.
poc
"Patrick" == Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com writes:
Patrick> The most likely explanation is that there is a lock file Patrick> lying around which shouldn't be there. Rebooting might Patrick> get rid of it, or you could poke around in /tmp.
I've already re-booted, and cleared /tmp of stale stuff. And /var/tmp is empty, so it's not that either.
I searched on google, and there's a lot of hits on this kind of error, and several cures claimed (but they don't work on my system).
On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 14:23 +0100, Colin Paul Adams wrote:
"Patrick" == Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com writes:
Patrick> On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 14:02 +0100, Colin Paul Adams wrote: >> >>>>> "Colin" == Colin Paul Adams <colin@colina.demon.co.uk> >> writes: >> Colin> I dare say libusb may well have been updated during the Colin> last week. It is currently at libusb-0.1.12-15.fc9.x86_64 . >> >> If I do rpm -q -i on it it says the install date is in May. I >> suspect that is when I installed Fedora 9. But I don't see an >> update date. Patrick> grep libusb /var/log/yum.log
Nothing.
Aaaaaarrrrrrrrgggghhhhh. Encroaching senility. I meant udev, not libusb. You want udev-124-1.fc9.2.x86_64
poc
"Patrick" == Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com writes:
Patrick> On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 14:23 +0100, Colin Paul Adams wrote: >> >>>>> "Patrick" == Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com >> writes: >> Patrick> On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 14:02 +0100, Colin Paul Adams wrote:
>> "Colin" == Colin Paul Adams colin@colina.demon.co.uk
>> >> writes: >> >> Colin> I dare say libusb may well have been updated during the Colin> last week. It is currently at libusb-0.1.12-15.fc9.x86_64 . >> >> >> >> If I do rpm -q -i on it it says the install date is in >> May. I >> suspect that is when I installed Fedora 9. But I >> don't see an >> update date. >> Patrick> grep libusb /var/log/yum.log >> >> Nothing.
Patrick> Aaaaaarrrrrrrrgggghhhhh. Encroaching senility. I meant
I'll race you :-)
Patrick> udev, not libusb. You want udev-124-1.fc9.2.x86_64
That's what I have. It was updated yesterday. Hm. Sounds suspicious.
How do I revert to .1.x86_64?
On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 16:11 +0100, Colin Paul Adams wrote:
"Patrick" == Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com writes:
Patrick> On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 14:23 +0100, Colin Paul Adams wrote: >> >>>>> "Patrick" == Patrick O'Callaghan <pocallaghan@gmail.com> >> writes: >> Patrick> On Mon, 2008-07-07 at 14:02 +0100, Colin Paul Adams wrote:
>>> "Colin" == Colin Paul Adams colin@colina.demon.co.uk
>> >> writes: >> >> Colin> I dare say libusb may well have been updated during the Colin> last week. It is currently at libusb-0.1.12-15.fc9.x86_64 . >> >> >> >> If I do rpm -q -i on it it says the install date is in >> May. I >> suspect that is when I installed Fedora 9. But I >> don't see an >> update date. >> Patrick> grep libusb /var/log/yum.log >> >> Nothing. Patrick> Aaaaaarrrrrrrrgggghhhhh. Encroaching senility. I meant
I'll race you :-)
Patrick> udev, not libusb. You want udev-124-1.fc9.2.x86_64
That's what I have. It was updated yesterday. Hm. Sounds suspicious.
How do I revert to .1.x86_64?
As I understand it yesterday's update was meant as a temporary fix to a problem introduced a few days ago, so *in theory* it shouldn't be the cause of your problem. Of course if you discover that it is then definitely report it to Bugzilla at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451320
If you want to revert, you probably still have the old package in /var/cache/yum, so "rpm --oldpackage ..." should be able to install it (modulo any dependencies).
poc
"Patrick" == Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com writes:
>> How do I revert to .1.x86_64?
Patrick> As I understand it yesterday's update was meant as a Patrick> temporary fix to a problem introduced a few days ago, so Patrick> *in theory* it shouldn't be the cause of your problem. Of
The timing sounds like it might well be. I had no such problem two days ago.
Patrick> course if you discover that it is then definitely report Patrick> it to Bugzilla at Patrick> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451320
I don't know that I can prove it, since I can't fix the problem. But I'll write something there.
Patrick> If you want to revert, you probably still have the old Patrick> package in /var/cache/yum, so "rpm --oldpackage ..."
I didn't, but I was able to download it.
Patrick> should be able to install it (modulo any dependencies).
The dependencies are the problem.