[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Printing in Gnome apps



Hi,

I'm having here a weired problem concerning my printing settings. I'm
working on an up to date Debian unstable system and I can't print from
Gnome applications, but from other non-Gnome applications it works fine
(e.g. enscript or acroread). With the help of a nice guy in the
linuxprinting.org forums (see [1], [2] and [3]) I was able to isolate
the problem.

To summarize I was able to somehow track down the cause of this problem:
I think (but am by no means sure of it) that my printer (Brother
HL-5170DN) won't accept postscript print jobs with a paper size other
than A4, even if the paper size is equal (height and width) to the A4
paper size, but indicated as Regular instead of A4. But on my system all
Gnome applications send a postscript with the paper size "Regular" to
the printer, but still with the right dimensions. So if you change from
A4 to Letter in the print preferences dialog you still get a postscript
with paper size Regular, Gnome will only change the dimensions to the
appropriate values.

I don't know if this behaviour of only accepting correct page sizes
could be fixed by changing the PPD file of CUPS (which is shipped by
Brother), or is hard-programmed in the printer. To further isolate this
problem it would be nice if someone could answer me the following
question: is it somehow possible to change the paper size from "Regular"
to "A4" on Debian, without recompiling the whole Gnome printing stack? I
would really appreciate some inputs, as this problem drives me nuts...
If this mailinglist isn't the appropriate place, please tell me so (I
thought it happens on Debian and with all the Gnome apps ->
debian-gtk-gnome, but this might be wrong).

Thanks for your comments,

	Patrick
 
[1]: http://linuxprinting.org/pipermail/brother-list/2005q3/001086.html
[2]: http://linuxprinting.org/pipermail/brother-list/2005q3/001094.html
[3]: http://linuxprinting.org/pipermail/brother-list/2005q3/001095.html



Reply to: