Re: Printing Impress handouts slide ordering. Some time in 2018, a prior bug was (mostly) fixed in which the order setting was always ignored (cannot find that bug at this time to link). Now, if "slides per page" is selected to some number, that feature works. But if "Slides per page" is set to the default "According to layout" setting, then the Order setting is still ignored.
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Create an Impress document with multiple slides.
2. Select File > Print > Document (Handouts).
Slides per page is by default set to "According to layout", and Order is set to "Left to right, then down". However, the preview pane shows the slides ordered top-to-bottom-then-right.
Slide order should be Left-to-right-then-down, as selected in the "Order" drop-down.
User Profile Reset: No
Note that if the user hand-selects any fixed number in the "Slides per page" drop-down, then the selected Order is honored (e.g., Left-to-right-then-down in the preview pane).
Created attachment 144240 [details]
Impress document with twelve slides
Print this document as handouts: File > Print > Document (Handouts). Note that by default Slides per page is "According to layout", Order is "Left to right, then down", but print preview pane shows slides top-bottom-then-right. If we switch Slides per page to any fixed number, then ordering is shown correctly.
Hmm, I see you yourself fixed it: bug 99301 :)
However, you opened this current report against 6.0, but the fix is only in 6.1.
I see the problem in 6.0, but not in 6.1. Should we close as duplicate of the older one?
Version: 22.214.171.124 (x64)
Build ID: efb621ed25068d70781dc026f7e9c5187a4decd1
CPU threads: 4; OS: Windows 10.0; UI render: default;
Locale: fi-FI (fi_FI); Calc: group threaded
Arch Linux 64-bit
Build ID: 6.1.1-1
CPU threads: 8; OS: Linux 4.18; UI render: default; VCL: gtk3_kde5;
Locale: fi-FI (fi_FI.UTF-8); Calc: group threaded
I agree this looks to be nicely fixed in LO 6.1. (Apparently I got a partial fix in 6.0.) Feel free to close this; thanks for the update.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 99301 ***