[Pkg-cups-devel] Bug#617468: Bug#617468: My cups-pdf is also producing blank pages, downgraded to 2.5.0-16 works

[Volker Behr]

On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 23:25 -0400, Bin Guo wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-03-17 at 12:16 +0100, Volker Behr wrote:
> >
> > Comparing the logs for the two installations of 2.5.1 it seems the files
> > printed in either case are not identical and/or not printed the same
> > way, so it is hard to discern what differences in the log are due to
> > what differences in the setup (e.g., in one case, there is a PS title
> > found, in the other it is not).
> > 
> > It would be good to have the log for one empty PDF and one good PDF
> > using 2.5.1 (and, of course, identical versions of CUPS and GhostScipt -
> > chack that in any case!), both using identical cups-pdf.conf-settings,
> > identical PPDs, identical printing commands and identical input files.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Volker
> > 
> 
> Hi Volker,
> 
>   I'm pretty sure that I've printed the same web page: www.cups-pdf.de
> The web page's title is CUPS-PDF. All three logs are printed from
> iceweasel.

>From the log of the empty page you can see that there was no title found
within the original PS file that was sent (by iceweasel) to the printer.
In the good case there was. So the input obviously differed. Since there
was no PS-title in the first case, perhaps there was more information in
the file missing so the PDF could not be created.
There are two possible culprits I can think of: iceweasel itelf and
CUPS/the PPD used. Please make double-sure those are absolutely
identical (same version, same revision, same built).
The best test for the printing system would be to just print two
identical files (e.g. the tiger.eps from Ghostscript's examples) via
commandline to the PDF-printer (to avoid any additional interaction by
other programs that might decide to modify the input).

Regards,
Volker