Bug 215582 - 'print to file' makes single-copy-only file
Summary: 'print to file' makes single-copy-only file
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: openoffice.org
Version: 6
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Caolan McNamara
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2006-11-14 18:51 UTC by Tim Waugh
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:11 UTC (History)
0 users

Fixed In Version: 2.0.4-5.5.10
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-01-04 08:56:39 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
CUPS Bugs and Features 2102 0 None None None Never
OpenOffice.org 71570 0 None None None Never

Description Tim Waugh 2006-11-14 18:51:19 UTC
Description of problem:
When printing a document 'to file' as PostScript, I get this in the output:

/#copies 1 def
<< /NumCopies null /Policies << /NumCopies 1 >> >> setpagedevice

This means that when I print the file like 'lp -n50 output.ps' I only get one copy.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
openoffice.org-core-2.0.4-5.5.3

How reproducible:
100%

Steps to Reproduce:
1.Print to file as PostScript
2.lp -n2 output.ps
  
Actual results:
One copy printed.

Expected results:
Two copies.

Comment 1 Caolan McNamara 2006-11-15 15:27:14 UTC
Do you not find that you get "/#copies 2 when you untick Collate when printing
to file, and with Collate ticked a copies 1 document with the page manually
repeated ?

Comment 2 Tim Waugh 2006-11-15 15:35:26 UTC
I'm talking about printing one copy to a file, and then later deciding to print
several copies of *that file*.

In other words, perhaps 'print to file' should handle several-copies and
single-copy in different ways, with only several-copies setting the number of
copies.

With single-copy I expect the PostScript to leave the number of copies alone so
that I can print multiple copies later.


Comment 3 Caolan McNamara 2006-11-15 15:59:12 UTC
ah the reverse of the problem I invented for myself, yeah that might work.
Problem isn't specific to us or to the gtk print dialog. Let's run it by upstream

Comment 4 Caolan McNamara 2006-11-15 19:35:06 UTC
accepted, committed to the relevant usual suspects

Comment 5 Caolan McNamara 2007-01-04 08:56:39 UTC
I believe 2.0.4-5.5.10 does the right thing now, if not feel free to reopen


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.