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

Bug#781253: cups: no duplex printing (two-sided) with lp or lpr



On Thu 26 Mar 2015 at 19:21:01 +0100, Vincent Lefevre wrote:                                                          
                                                                                                                      
> On 2015-03-26 16:41:53 +0000, Brian Potkin wrote:                                                                   
> > Please post what you get for 'lpoptions -l'.                                                                      
                                                                                                                      
The following line indicates that 'sides=...' should be acceptable as                                                 
an option used with lp/lpr and the default print queue. Mystifying.                                                   
                                                                                                                      
> Duplex/Duplex: None *DuplexNoTumble DuplexTumble                                                                    
                                                                                                                      
Evince is very likely using 'Duplex=DuplexNoTumble' when the file gets                                                
to the server. How does 'lp -o Duplex=DuplexNoTumble file.pdf' fare?                                                  
                                                                                                                      
Do we assume you do not have access to the server logs?                                                               
                                                                                                                      
What is the make and model of the printer?                                                                            
                                                                                                                      
Regards,                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                      
Brian.


Reply to: