PostScript problem with Xerox Phaser 6280DN

[Helge Blischke]

Steve Kleene wrote:

>> Steve Kleene wrote:
>>
>> > What follows may not be a CUPS problem, but I think someone here will
>> > understand it in any case.
>> >
>> > I am trying to get CUPS working with a new Xerox Phaser 6280DN color
>> > laser
>> > printer connected by USB.  The OS is Debian Lenny.  The PPD (from
>> > Xerox) is
>> > installed as /etc/cups/ppd/Phaser_6280DN.ppd.  The printer definition
>> > at
>> > http://localhost:631/ looks OK.  I can successfully print jobs from
>> > Linux with a command such as this:
>> >
>> >   lpr -P Phaser_6280DN test.pdf
>> >
>> > However, 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.  To
>> > investigate,
>> > 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, can't be viewed in gv (which uses the
>> > ghostscript interpreter), and gives the error page if sent to the
>> > Phaser directly with
>> > lpr.  The one made for the old Laserjet works in gv and prints OK when
>> > sent
>> > via lpr.  Both PostScript files are LanguageLevel 3.  The one made for
>> > the Phaser has an extra comment at the top:
>> >
>> > %%TargetDevice: (Phaser 6280DN) (3017.104) 1
>> >
>> > A similar line appears in /etc/cups/ppd/Phaser_6280DN.ppd:
>> >
>> > *PSVersion: "(3017.104) 1"
>> >
>> > Ultimately I'd like to be able to print from acroread.  Just what is
>> > happening when I get the two different PostScript files?  When I invoke
>> > lpr directly, does that bypass the Phaser PPD file?
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>>
>> I suspect it is an Adobe Reader proglem.
>> Please post (an URL to) the PostScript file your Adobe Reader generates.
>>
>> Helge
>>
> 
> I have posted the two files as follows:
> 
>   http://syrano.acb.uc.edu/tmp/good.ps
>   http://syrano.acb.uc.edu/tmp/bad.ps
> 
> As you would guess, good.ps was made from acroread by selecting printer
> laserjet_4_plus.  bad.ps was made by selecting Phaser_6280DN.  Thanks for
> taking a look.

Well, my first tests showed the following intermediate results:
(1) If I comment out the whole job patch file in bad.ps, which has been
     copied in from the PPD, the file prints OK using Ghostscript.
(2) After decrypting the job patch file (2 stages) to get a clear text
    PostScript chunk, running both the clear text patch file and
    the modified file as of (1) through Ghostscript. it prints OK as well.

That means, there is something wrong with how the job patch file is
set up in the PPD. I already have a suspicion but I'll need some more
work to either very- or falsify the hypothesis.

Helge