If I issue a print command Libreoffice (L) asks, wether I want to print a serial document. I enter <NO> and L outputs only the first page (correctly).
(In reply to wegwerf4 from comment #0) > If I issue a print command Libreoffice (L) asks, wether I want to print a > serial document. I enter <NO> and L outputs only the first page (correctly). This is how it works / works as designed. In order to print out the entire recordset, or a subset thereof (using a query), optionally with filters, you must use a mailmerge, or else create a report with the report generator.
Please provide a step by step description of how to reproduce what you are experiencing. Also please indicate your operating system and LO version number. Please also indicate any difference, for example, with screenshots that you can attach to the present bug report, with regard to a previous version of LO in which what you are currently experiencing, did not occur.
he bug works as follows: I am creating a mail merge letter in .dot format with variables from an exel database from an .ott template. After opening the serial .ott letter I create a serial letter by choosing the relevant database entry and create the output file with "create single file" and "save to folder xy". I can open the created .dot file with writer, edit it. Up to this point everything is ok. I then open this file with writer. Choose "print", "all pages", and 2 copies. Writer prints the first page and one copy. Same error when I choose "page 1-2" in the print dialogue and set copies to "2". Hope this helps.
Correction: Printing the number of copies works. But whatever page number I enter after clicking "no" when asked wether I want to print a serial letter, it prints page 1, when I enter "print all" and prints nothing when I enter "page 2".
Version 7.5.6.2
I assume this is the same issue as reported in bug 155250. If you still experience the issue in a currently-maintained version (please test 24.2 if you can), please add a comment with updated details in bug 155250. Thank you! *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 155250 ***