It is true to the letter, in the way I described it. Look more closely
at the "pure luck" sentence, consider again more Mike's statement, read
again what I gave as my advice above, please. You'll then notice,...
...that the "pure luck" sentence is refering to "this" file (i.e. the
unchanged one),
...that Mike referred to "support for non-conforming files that advertise
that they are conforming",
...that I said the file printed perfectly in "raw" mode (i.e. without going
thru pstops) on PS printers.
It indeed is pure luck to tell pstops that a DSC conforming file is
coming, and then send a non-conforming one. However, you increase the
chances for your luck considerably, if you don't pretend false quality
to pstops, and you'll then get a more relaxed filtering done by pstops.
And CUPS indeed does try very hard to handle *all* PostScript files
gracefully -- however, it expects them to not claim DSC compliance if
that is not the case. I need to simply remove the "-Adobe-2.0" part from
the first line, and get the file printed (I tested it! Did you??)
Also, I tested the raw printing of that very file with 6 different PS
printers (level 2 and level 3 ones), each one with a different RIP
software loaded. You very safely assume that I don't write such a thing
without being pretty sure about its validity.
So indeed you are not completely without any chance to print your xfig
files at the moment -- not even if the xfig developers don't fix their
false DSC conforming claims included in the file declaration...
Clearer now?
--
cupsys prints empty pages
https://launchpad.net/bugs/51432
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
