Bug#702673: PostScript drivers won't work for HP LaserJet 1200
reassign 702673 cups-filters
thanks
On Sat 27 Jul 2013 at 13:43:00 +0200, Stefan Nagy wrote:
> > In an earlier mail you said you created a print queue with
> >
> > lpadmin -p test -E -v file:/tmp/printout -P /etc/cups/ppd/HP-LaserJet-1200.ppd
> >
> > and obtained a printout which satisfactorily represented the file you
> > wanted to print. Now send this file directly to the printer, avoiding
> > any backend:
> >
> > cat file > /dev/usb/lp0
>
> This 'works': I can print the test page, but it takes 26 minutes and 30
> seconds – so the result seems to be the same I get when I try to print
> the test page when I use the HPLIP backend (see Message #54).
My curiosity got the better of me! I have a LaserJet 2200 which is
networked but also it has a USB connection. Most printing here is text
and pdf documents , but never the test page. Over the network and with
USB
1. It took about 15 minutes for the page to appear when sent directly to
the printer. That's all apart from the 30 secs or so it took the
filters to prepare testprint for printing.
2. With '-o raw' there is a blank page followed by a page with
ERROR: timeout OFFENDING COMMAND: timeout STACK: -mark- -mark- -mark-
This looks like the interpreter giving up because it had to wait too
long for data. Otherwise
3. A 6.5 MB PS file of a graphics-intensive web page takes about 2 mins
to appear.
4. With the Gutenprint and pxlmono PPDs, first printing to a file device
and then directly to the printer, the jobs printed quickly. The file
produced by pxlmono was 3 MB and came out in just less than 1.5 mins.
These files are not PS of course.
So, full circle and back to your first mail. I have no explanation for
the slowness of printing of a test page. However, I think the cups usb
backend is behaving and the report should be in cups-filters.
> To count out the possibility that this problem is due to insufficient
> memory (the printer has only 8MB of RAM) I printed some quite complex
> vector graphics and high resolution bitmaps with the 12 years old
> Postscript driver on Windows XP – it never took the printer more than 7
> minutes to print those documents. So I don't think my problem is related
> to insufficient RAM.
I'd agree.
> When I look at the properties of the PostScript file which results when
> I send the test page to the file device file:/tmp/printout (I'll attach
> this file) the stated format is PS-Adobe-3.0 – could that mean that it's
> a PostScript 3 file? As far as I know my printer only supports
> PostScript Level 2…
'PS-Adobe-3.0' relates to the level of Document Structuring Conventions.
The PostScript Level is 2:
%%LanguageLevel: 2
>From an earlier mail of yours:
2. I reactivated my old notebook with Debian Squeeze and I was able
to print with both PPDs (not only the included ones but also the
current ones).
If it is the test print file you used there is a major difference between
Squeeze and Wheezy. Squeeze uses bannertops and the PS file more or less
goes to the printer without any conversion. On Wheezy bannertopdf is used
and the PDF is converted to PS with Ghostscript. The Squeeze file is also
about five times smaller than the Wheezy one.
> > Then
> >
> > p -d test -o raw printout
>
> Sorry, I don't get it… Should that be 'lpadmin -d test -o raw
> printout' ?
lp -d test -o raw printout
Sorry.
Stefan, I think we've reached the end of the road with this. We have both
put in quite a lot of work on the issue but if there is a bug to fix it
will have to done by someone more familiar with the system.
Cheers,
Brian.
Reply to: