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

Bug#602751: marked as done (Upstream Ghostscript 9.0: Breaks Printing)



Your message dated Mon, 23 Jul 2012 17:32:45 +0200
with message-id <201207231732.45298.roucaries.bastien@gmail.com>
and subject line Done: Upstream Ghostscript 9.0: Breaks Printing
has caused the Debian Bug report #602751,
regarding Upstream Ghostscript 9.0: Breaks Printing
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
602751: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=602751
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: ghostscript
Version: 9.00~dfsg-1

Please note that I do not use debian, but the debian package maintainer Jonas Smedegaard's asked me to report a debian bug for the following bug found in upstream ghostscript 9.00:


As visible on my system and documented on http://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691733

--- begin cite ---
I have following troubles with printing.
When i add new text printjob with at least 2 pages (e.g. pdf file), first page looks normally, but other duplicates current page on each paper. It looks like
layered document with text shifts.
--- end cite ---

Upstream bug report confirms this bug with different printers.

My system failed with (just for reference as non-debian) cups 1.3.7, ghostscript 9.0 and turboprint (http://www.turboprint.com). But according to the upstream bug report, this happens without using turboprint, too.





--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Package: ghostscript
Version: 9.05~dfsg-6

Closed according to upstream changelog.

Bastien

--- End Message ---

Reply to: