Created attachment 865681 [details] output of the print management tools Description of problem: Sending a print image to the printer fails directly, but printing to a file and then printing the file works. Suspected filter problem. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): Fedora 20 with an HP2100 laser jet postscript printer. How reproducible: totally Steps to Reproduce: 1. web application selects printer and it fails 2. 3. Actual results: one totally blank page and one page with the following ERROR: invalidaccess OFFENDING COMMAND: filter STACK /subFileDecode endstream 0 --nostringval-- --nostringval-- 48 false Expected results: If I print on another system (alt. OS) using the same web application undert tomcat OR if I print to a file (enclosed: failed_report.ps) and then use "Document Viewer" - it prints fine. Additional info: Enclosed is a sample print file and the troubleshoot.txt output. OOPS - I cannot add two attachment directly, will try again.
The printer having problems is an OLD HP2100 but pristine postscript enabled printer. The file that caused problems and is documented is a postscript file - I think (.ps). Yesterday I had the same problem printing 3 .pdf files from Document Viewer. I ended up printing the document on a newer HP6600 color ink jet printer which had no problems at all. I have had no problems with this older printer ever since Fedora 6. It is faster and a better B+W printer. Net comments indicate that some cups filter is running twice or unnecessarily .. If there is anything more I can do to help document this, please let me know.
OK here are some more statistics on ONE file which I used as a test case ALL below tests done to HP2100 Laser Writer with postscript chip lpr /tmp/doc.pdf - success using the files tool to open above document: 1) open with Document Viewer (default) + print - fails 2) open with LibreOffice + print - fails 3) open with print previewer + print - success 4) open with GIMP, import PDF + print - success
I think this is a duplicate of bug #1027332. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1027332 ***
I hope you are right, but looking at the bug you mention - it is certainly similar. I was hoping the information I enclosed could be added to the other bug but probably not as this is NOW closed. Good luck - hope you find it.
A link to this bug is in the other one, so the information is all still accessible.