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

Re: can't get CUPS working with Xerox Phaser 6280DN

[I'm the original poster, back from a vacation.  Sorry for the delay.]

On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:14:11 -0500, I wrote:

> I am failing to get CUPS working with a new Xerox Phaser 6280DN color laser
> printer connected by USB.  The OS is Debian Lenny.  ... the jobs get queued
> and don't print.

I've made some progress.  I don't know how, but at some point a resident
PPD file (/usr/share/ppd/foo2zjs/Xerox-Phaser-6115MFP.ppd.gz) got unzipped
and installed as /etc/cups/ppd/Phaser_6280DN.ppd.  That PPD is written for
the Xerox 6115MFP and doesn't work with the 6280DN.  Since it was renamed
"Phaser_6280DN.ppd", I had thought I had the right PPD in place.  Now I have
deleted that CUPS printer and defined one that uses the PPD downloaded from

In general, either of these tests now gives a fine printout:

  lpr -P Phaser_6280DN test.ps
  lpr -P Phaser_6280DN test.pdf

But if I print to the Phaser from acroread 8.1.7-0.1, the printout is a page
that is blank except for 5 lines of PostScript errors.  So I used the "Print
to File" feature of acroread.  I found that the file created depends on
whether the printer selected ("Name") is the old laserjet_4_plus or the new
Phaser_6280DN.  The PostScript file made for the Phaser is very different and
can't be viewed in ghostscript.  The one made for the old Laserjet works in
ghostscript and prints OK when sent via lpr.  Both PostScript files are
LanguageLevel 3.

Ultimately I'd like to be able to print from acroread.  Does the success from
lpr mean that the PPD file is working?  Just what is happening when I get the
two different PostScript files?

On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:43:16 -0800, Justin The Cynical wrote:

> Is there some reason why you are using the USB interface?  I would strongly
> suggest putting that device on your LAN, it would make things a  heck of a
> lot easier to setup.

I understand the advantages of that but may have a problem too.  I'd like to
figure out the issues above and get back to the LAN idea.


Reply to: