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

Bug#942055: marked as done (cups-filters: Fails to print on Brother HL-2035 (foomatic/kl1250) with ghostscript 9.27~dfsg-2+deb10u2 armel)

Your message dated Sun, 24 Nov 2024 16:21:12 -0600
with message-id <2293264.iZASKD2KPV@riemann>
and subject line Re: Bug#942055: ghostscript in buster partly broken on armel?
has caused the Debian Bug report #942055,
regarding cups-filters: Fails to print on Brother HL-2035 (foomatic/kl1250) with ghostscript 9.27~dfsg-2+deb10u2 armel
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.)


-- 
942055: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=942055
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: cups-filters
Version: 1.21.6-5
Severity: normal

Dear Maintainer,

the problem starts with upgrading from 'stretch' to 'buster'.
Printer doesn't print properly. 

After downgrade ghostscript, libgs9 and libgs9-common to the version from oldstable ('stretch'), printer works properly again.


-- System Information:
Debian Release: 10.1
  APT prefers stable
  APT policy: (500, 'stable'), (500, 'oldstable')
Architecture: armel (armv5tel)

Kernel: Linux 4.19.0-6-marvell
Kernel taint flags: TAINT_CRAP
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8), LANGUAGE=C (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Init: systemd (via /run/systemd/system)
LSM: AppArmor: enabled

Versions of packages cups-filters depends on:
ii  bc                         1.07.1-2+b1
ii  cups-filters-core-drivers  1.21.6-5
ii  ghostscript                9.26a~dfsg-0+deb9u5
ii  libc6                      2.28-10
ii  libcups2                   2.2.10-6+deb10u1
ii  libcupsfilters1            1.21.6-5
ii  libcupsimage2              2.2.10-6+deb10u1
ii  libfontconfig1             2.13.1-2
ii  libfontembed1              1.21.6-5
ii  libgcc1                    1:8.3.0-6
ii  libqpdf21                  8.4.0-2
ii  libstdc++6                 8.3.0-6
ii  poppler-utils              0.71.0-5

ii  libgs9:armel   9.26a~dfsg-0+deb9u5 armel
ii  libgs9-common  9.26a~dfsg-0+deb9u5 all


Versions of packages cups-filters recommends:
ii  colord             1.4.3-4
ii  liblouisutdml-bin  2.7.0-5+b1

Versions of packages cups-filters suggests:
ii  antiword                                   0.37-14
ii  docx2txt                                   1.4-1
ii  foomatic-db-compressed-ppds [foomatic-db]  20181217-2
ii  imagemagick                                8:6.9.10.23+dfsg-2.1
ii  imagemagick-6.q16 [imagemagick]            8:6.9.10.23+dfsg-2.1

-- no debconf information

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Sat, 24 Feb 2024 20:42:51 -0600 Steven Robbins <steve@sumost.ca> wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Feb 2020 16:13:51 +0100 Jonas Smedegaard <jonas@jones.dk> wrote:
> 
> > > > I maintain the Ghostscript package, but am not skilled in the various 
> > > > tools using Ghostscript.  It seems more sensible to me to first 
> > > > investigate toolchain problems further back in the chain, where (I 
> > > > assume) it is better known how to isolate the data forwarded down the 
> > > > chain.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I guess this is what I did in previous message 33 ?
> > 
> > Ohh, indeed!  Great details and smells strongly of the bug being in 
> > Ghostscript.  I am hereby re-re-re-assigning and reviving versions...
> 
> Dear submitter,
> 
> Can you advise whether this is still an issue?  I ran the attached foomatic 
> file through gs on amd64 and it still works fine.  But I have no access to an 
> armel machine.

No response received, so closing bug report.
-Steve

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


--- End Message ---
Reply to: