On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 17:54 +0100, Jean-Philippe Thierry wrote: > Hi, > > Le 24 mars 2011 15:44, Martin-Éric Racine <martin-eric.rac...@iki.fi> > a écrit : > 2011/3/24 Volker Behr <b...@physik.uni-wuerzburg.de>: > > The log-file you sent me contains the following line: > > > > Thu Mar 24 11:05:53 2011 [DEBUG] file already pdf, simply > copying it > > > (cp /var/spool/cups-pdf/SPOOL/cups2pdf-12256 > /home/jpht/tmp/PDF/Bugs_in_package_cups-pdf_--_Debian_Bug_report_logs.pdf) > > > > This option to directly copy PDF instead of reprocessing it > was > > suggested to me some time back and I decided not to > implement it since > > it would disable all options set in cups-pdf.conf on the > respective > > files. This is exactly what happens to you here: the PDF is > just passed > > through instead of getting re-worked with all your desired > options by > > CUPS-PDF. > > > > So, speaking for upstream: no fix needed. > > My advise to the distribution: remove this additional patch > on CUPS-PDF > > since it breaks basic functionality. > > > The patch in question was removed in 2.5.1-1 as far as Debian > and > Ubuntu are concerned: > > * Dropped 70_cups-pdf_support-pdf-workflow.patch > + This patch has received more criticism than praises from > the end-users, > because it essentially renders the Ghostscript options in > cups-pdf.conf > useless, plus it no longer applies cleanly to the > upstream code. > > From this perspective, I'd mark the issue as fixed since that > version. Agreed? > > Martin-Éric > > just tried installing cups-pdf from sid on my squeeze. GSCall and > PDFVer are taken into acount but... I am only getting 1 page empty > documents; even failling back to the default settings > in /etc/cups/cups-pdf.conf. Could it be due to a dependency issue even > if not raised by the package? > > log file attached > Just as a note:
might be related to issue #617468 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
