281167 - Printing the page results in the printer blinking but no print

Status: RESOLVED EXPIRED

(Firefox :: General, defect)

Description

[Henrik Winther Jensen]

User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; da-DK; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041118 Firefox/1.0
Build Identifier: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; da-DK; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041118 Firefox/1.0

When i try to print a page the printer blinks but nothing happens. Printing
works all right with netscape 7.02. Printer is a Hewlett Packard 4ML
(Postscript). Printer is installed as a cups printer. I have also tried printing
to a file and then using lpr to print the file. Same result. I have tried
looking at the
file, looks OK to me.

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Press Files, Press print
2.
3.

Actual Results:  
Printer is blinking, nothing else.

Expected Results:  
A page coming out of the printer, with print on it!

I am using Suse 9.1. I can provide a copy of the print file if you wish.

Comment 1

[Ian Graham]

This seems odd -- I have not had this problem, and have a similar setup (albeit
red hat, not suse). It could be a printer problem -- Have you tried power
cycling the printer, and retrying?

Also, I assume you are printing to postscript -- is the postscript output
viewable using ghostscript?  

Comment 2

[Henrik Winther Jensen]

(In reply to comment #1)
> This seems odd -- I have not had this problem, and have a similar setup (albeit
> red hat, not suse). It could be a printer problem -- Have you tried power
> cycling the printer, and retrying?
> 
> Also, I assume you are printing to postscript -- is the postscript output
> viewable using ghostscript?  

(In reply to comment #1)
> This seems odd -- I have not had this problem, and have a similar setup (albeit
> red hat, not suse). It could be a printer problem -- Have you tried power
> cycling the printer, and retrying?
> 
> Also, I assume you are printing to postscript -- is the postscript output
> viewable using ghostscript?  

(In reply to comment #1)
> This seems odd -- I have not had this problem, and have a similar setup (albeit
> red hat, not suse). It could be a printer problem -- Have you tried power
> cycling the printer, and retrying?
> 
> Also, I assume you are printing to postscript -- is the postscript output
> viewable using ghostscript?  

If i print to a file i can se the print allright. I have tried recycling the
printer. If it is a printer problem why does the same work OK with netscape?
If i try to send the postscript file to the printer, the result is the same as
when i try to print directly. Could it be that firefox neglects to add a
formfeed to the print? Would it be helpfull if i added the generated postscript
file to the bug report?

Kind regards
Henrik

Comment 3

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

This is an automated message, with ID "auto-resolve01".

This bug has had no comments for a long time. Statistically, we have found that
bug reports that have not been confirmed by a second user after three months are
highly unlikely to be the source of a fix to the code.

While your input is very important to us, our resources are limited and so we
are asking for your help in focussing our efforts. If you can still reproduce
this problem in the latest version of the product (see below for how to obtain a
copy) or, for feature requests, if it's not present in the latest version and
you still believe we should implement it, please visit the URL of this bug
(given at the top of this mail) and add a comment to that effect, giving more
reproduction information if you have it.

If it is not a problem any longer, you need take no action. If this bug is not
changed in any way in the next two weeks, it will be automatically resolved.
Thank you for your help in this matter.

The latest beta releases can be obtained from:
Firefox:     http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/
Thunderbird: http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/releases/1.5beta1.html
Seamonkey:   http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/

Comment 4

[Gervase Markham [:gerv]]

This bug has been automatically resolved after a period of inactivity (see above
comment). If anyone thinks this is incorrect, they should feel free to reopen it.