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. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120526152634.GO2847@desktop
