© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
73416ba
(Get the code!)
I've done three tests, based on the investigations we've done:
1)
http://
This test *should* print "A line of text" at the bottom left of the page, but instead simply ejects a blank page, apparently with no error indicated.
We narrowed the problem down to line 202 (it seems to be the "currenthalftone" operator):
/HT currenthalftone cp2g def
2)
http://
This should print two fairly large bitmap images of the upper case character "A", about halfway up the page, one next to the other. From the description I received from those that ran similar tests previously, I think on the Brother you should see one "A" and next to it something like "_ _" - it seems to be drawing the bottom row, or few rows of pixels from the "A" then silently giving up. The difference between the two is that the failing one is CCITT Group 4 FAX compressed, the other is not.
3)
http://
(This is quite big - 2.4Mb)
This contains two instances of the image from the test file for this bug (#960666). If this behaves the same as the original file, you should get one image printed correctly, and then an error (the actuall error may well be different to the originally reported one, depending on how the buffering works out).
The image I hope will work is uncompressed, whilst the image that I hope induces the error is LZW compressed.
Now, as for reporting this to Brother, as I said above, I feel the wording should be along the lines of "we believe, and have considerable evidence supporting the belief, that these are valid Postscript Language Level 2 files, and therefore, should be interpreted successfully by any Postscript Language Level 3 (or Level 2) interpreter. The Bother <printer model> Poscript interpreter fails <describe each case>".
My inclination is to say there is no need to mention that, from your (the user's) point of view, printing worked in earlier versions of Ubuntu nor, in fact, is there any reason to mention the operating system at all. *Where* the jobs came from is irrelevant, the only relevant informatation is that we are confident these jobs are valid Postscript, and their Postscript implementation fails to interpret them.
If those who are interested could try each of thoses tests, and make sure they fail in the expected manner (my only concern is that, in simplifying the tests, I've inadvertantly changed something that will make them work).
Once we have confirmed that these files fail as expected, I will attach them to this bug, to ensure that they don't get accidentally deleted from my user area on the server.
Chris