Re: Wheezy printing problem: 2 identical (?) machines and 1 does not print PDFs
On Sat 26 May 2012 at 13:30:27 +0000, Camaleón wrote:
> On Sat, 26 May 2012 13:01:16 +0100, Brian wrote:
>
> There's no "cupsFilter:" line in any of PPD files so maybe the printer is
> not a true PostScript printer or uses a slightly different implementation
> developed by HP.
That is not relevant to the point I made but, to satisfy your curiosity:
if there no *cupsFilter line in a PPD file then CUPS assumes the printer
requires a backend to send it PostScript. Nothing to do with a 'true
PostScript printer', whatever that might be. Either the printer has a
PostScript interpreter or it doesn't. Many manufacturers implement their
own anyway.
[Snip]
> > The standard language used for printing in Debian has been PDF for over
> > three years. There is no inherent benefit in inputting a PostScript file
> > to CUPS.
>
> I assure there is.
But at least you have discarded "PostScript is a raw language, no
conversion is needed between the doc and the printer . . . ." as a
reason and accept the filter chain is
PDF file ---> PS file ---> CUPS ---> PDF file
Is it a comfort getting back to where you started?
[Snip]
> > You are also confusing the input file with the file sent by a CUPS
> > backend to the printer. In the latter case, you reply completely on the
> > capabilities of the printer's interpreters whether the file contains
> > PostScript, PCL or any other language.
>
> If the printer does support PostScript and uses a PS driver, the above is
> completely irrelevant.
I have a feeling you may have returned to "PostScript is a raw language,
no conversion is needed between the doc and the printer . . . ." idea.
Hope I'm wrong.
Reply to: