Bug#990210: fixed in cups-pdf 3.0.1-12

[Till Kamppeter <till.kamppeter@gmail.com>]

Sorry, I had overlooked the link in the very first post.

Also thanks for the patch which shows how cups-filters (most probably 
pstops) massages the file.

The file has actually 993 pages:

$ gs -q -dBATCH -dNOPAUSE -sDEVICE=bbox all.ps 2>&1 | grep 
%%BoundingBox: | wc -l
993

or simply display it with

gs all.ps

(and press Enter 993 times).

evince also shows only the 422 pages which your PostScript viewer shows 
to you.

The file has strange internal page numbering:

$ grep -i '%%Page: ' all.ps | wc -l
993
$ grep -i '%%Page: ' all.ps

It redefines "showpage" (the PostScript function to display/print a page 
when completed rendering it:

$ grep showpage all.ps | wc -l

1
$ grep showpage all.ps
/p{pop showpage pagesave restore /pagesave save def}def

This makes a single "p" displaying/printing the page.

So let us search for those "p"s:

$ grep ' p$' all.ps | wc -l

993

So Ghostscript (or the print process) outputting 993 pages seems correct 
to me, and I do not understand why evince and also your PostScript 
viewer only output 422 pages. Perhaps they consider duplicate page 
numbers as duplicate pages and skip them.

First numbers in "%%Page:" lines:

$ grep -i '%%Page: ' all.ps | cut -d ' ' -f 2 | sort | uniq | wc -l

422


Second numbers in "%%Page:" lines:

$ grep -i '%%Page: ' all.ps | cut -d ' ' -f 3 | sort | uniq | wc -l
422

The changes coming from cups-filters/the pstops filter mainly only 
change the DSC comments, letting the second number in the "%%Page:" 
lines going from 1 to 993 instead of being the same as the first number, 
starting from 1 again and again. This seems to make the viewers 
accepting all pages.

I hope this gives some insight.

On 01/10/2021 13:11, Andre Heider wrote:
> Hi Till,
>
> On 01/10/2021 12:32, Till Kamppeter wrote:
> > Andre, could you attach your PostScript file, once the original and 
> > also the one you get after pre-processing when using "GSCall echo %s 
> > %s %s;
> > cp %s /tmp"? Thanks.
>
> attached a patch for the original .ps file, see the first post for a link.
>
> But maybe that patch already hints at the problem?
>
> Cheers,
> Andre