strange cups problem

[Peter L. Peres]

On Mon, 4 Oct 2004, Lennart Sorensen wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 02:34:45AM -0400, Peter L. Peres wrote:
>> cups is installed correctly and runs using the lpr, lpq, lprm commands
>> (besides the web interface). Anything (ps, image, text) printed using lpr
>> from the cli is done right. Nearly everything printed from applications
>> comes out raw, in despite of the printer command being set to lpr. There
>> is only one lpr in the path. lpd was never installed on htis system.
>
> I wonder if some programs generate binary postscript files, and cups
> thinks they are 'raw' and dumps them as if they were native raw printer
> commands.  Not sure why that would be given it seems to work fine here
> from the programs I have used and I have cups with raw support (so
> samba, etc can work with windows users.)
>
> Which programs cause problems?  Does the output postscript look like
> ascii postscript or binary junk?
>
> What are the first few lines of the postscript?

Parts of a somewhat legal ps preamble imho. It is not sent as binary, it 
looks like raw ps.

The culprits so far are acroreader 5 and gimp as well as opeoffice (I 
tried that once). I expect firefox etc to behave the same.

Thr print command in mozilla is currently:

lpr ${MOZ_PRINTER_NAME:+'-P'}${MOZ_PRINTER_NAME}

which looks wrong to me. MOZ_PRINTER_NAME is (I think) 
PostScript/SymbolicNameOfPrinter (from env("PRINTER")). The latter seems 
wrong, as it is not a ps printer. So it should not be qualified as 
PostScript/... no ?

Peter
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml