User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS sun4u; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031015 Firebird/0.7 Build Identifier: Mozilla 1.6b and Thunder bird 0.7 Using the "File/Print" option on Solaris 9 with Mozilla 1.6b results in a popup window with this message: There was a problem printing. No Xprint server(s) could be found. Check wether the XPSERVER list environment variable contains any valid Xprint servers. All prior versions of Mozilla used the Solaris softprint defaults without a problem via the users "~/.printers" file. Reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Expected Results: Use Solaris native printing
From http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.6b/installation-ports.html#ports_solaris > # Requires Xprint to be installed for printing. xprint.mozdev.org provides the GISWxprint (or GISWxprintglue) package as drop-in way for installation the old way of printing is no longer be supported - too many bugs, no support for internationalization, no euro support, no maintainer, no one looking at bugs and no hope.
That's a bit overstated. The postscript printing module has some serious flaws, but it does work. It's receiving some maintenance, and there are no plans to drop it from mozilla. The issue here is that one of the solaris builds provided by mozilla are built without the postscript printing module. These builds are contributed builds, meaning they're contributed by an outside volunteer rather than being the responsibility of the mozilla organization, and the contributor has chosen to provide these builds with only the Xprint printing module. If you'll check <http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/mozilla/releases/mozilla1.6b/>, there are actually two solaris builds of 1.6b available from mozilla.org. I haven't downloaded it to check, but it looks like mozilla-sparc-sun-solaris2.8_1.6b.tar.gz (note the underscore) should contain both printing modules. For further discussion of these issues, see bug 195065. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 195065 ***
Status: UNCONFIRMED → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 15 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
> That's a bit overstated. No, this is not overstated. Search bugzilla. Make your own tests. Face the reality that your beloved pet is not the runner. Follow the discussion in the web. I doubt that anyone except RedHat and the Mozilla Foundation will support that way of printing in 2 - 3 years. > The postscript printing module has some serious flaws, > but it does work. It's receiving some maintenance, and there are no plans to > drop it from mozilla. Thats **** with bechamel. Where is the 'maintaince' you are talking about? Since 2 years Mozillas so called 'default Postscript driver' is unable to print on HP printers and HP customer support is **** ANGRY about about the TOTAL INABILITY of mozilla to produce Postscript code which works with their printers. For Lexmark and Tek printers similar bugzilla bugs exist. Either you provide solutions for the problems or accept that this part of Mozilla fades out.
David, We have bug reports about printing on HP and Tek postscript printers, and I don't doubt that there's a real problem, but I can't reproduce it on the one HP printer I have access to. If HP, Tek, or Lexmark have any information or assistance to offer on the subject, it'd be welcome. Further comments on this subject should go on one of the relevant bugs, e.g. bug 176938.
(In reply to comment #4) > David, > > We have bug reports about printing on HP and Tek postscript printers, and I > don't doubt that there's a real problem, but I can't reproduce it on the one HP > printer I have access to. If HP, Tek, or Lexmark have any information or > assistance to offer on the subject, it'd be welcome. Further comments on this > subject should go on one of the relevant bugs, e.g. bug 176938. Why should I bother wasting time with dead code? LTSP, Debian, Mandrake - they all build without the postscript printing module now or the next major release will get rid of it, other Linux distributions will follow that lead. Except RedHat of course but that company lives behind the moon anyway.
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.