Bug#1043331: cups: no color printing (black/white works; ppd file used)
Package: cups
Version: 2.4.2-3+deb12u1
Severity: normal
X-Debbugs-Cc: wannek-spamfree@gmx.de
Dear Maintainer,
* What led up to the situation?
Printing from graphical system or command line will always result in black/white/gray.
No color, independent of different settings or options.
Color worked before (Debian buster), now upgraded to bookworm.
* What exactly did you do (or not do) that was effective (or
ineffective)?
1) KDE print dialog, no matter if okular, libreoffice
(color is default, explicitly chosen color)
2) lp -o ColorModel=CMYK -d myprinter x.pdf
* What was the outcome of this action?
the correct page in grayscale, but no color
* What outcome did you expect instead?
color
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 12.1
APT prefers stable-updates
APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable-security'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
Kernel: Linux 6.1.0-10-amd64 (SMP w/16 CPU threads; PREEMPT)
Locale: LANG=de_DE.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=de_DE.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=de:en_US
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /usr/bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled
Versions of packages cups depends on:
ii cups-client 2.4.2-3+deb12u1
ii cups-common 2.4.2-3+deb12u1
ii cups-core-drivers 2.4.2-3+deb12u1
ii cups-daemon 2.4.2-3+deb12u1
ii cups-filters 1.28.17-3
ii cups-ppdc 2.4.2-3+deb12u1
ii cups-server-common 2.4.2-3+deb12u1
ii debconf [debconf-2.0] 1.5.82
ii ghostscript 10.0.0~dfsg-11+deb12u1
ii libavahi-client3 0.8-10
ii libavahi-common3 0.8-10
ii libc6 2.36-9+deb12u1
ii libcups2 2.4.2-3+deb12u1
ii libgcc-s1 12.2.0-14
ii libstdc++6 12.2.0-14
ii libusb-1.0-0 2:1.0.26-1
ii poppler-utils 22.12.0-2+b1
ii procps 2:4.0.2-3
Versions of packages cups recommends:
ii avahi-daemon 0.8-10
ii colord 1.4.6-2.2
Versions of packages cups suggests:
ii cups-bsd 2.4.2-3+deb12u1
pn cups-pdf <none>
pn foomatic-db-compressed-ppds | foomatic-db <none>
ii smbclient 2:4.17.9+dfsg-0+deb12u3
ii udev 252.12-1~deb12u1
-- debconf information excluded
Reply to: