Bug 81753 - LO doesn't correctly recognize connected printer when printing on OS X
Summary: LO doesn't correctly recognize connected printer when printing on OS X
Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME
Alias: None
Product: LibreOffice
Classification: Unclassified
Component: LibreOffice (show other bugs)
Version:
(earliest affected)
4.3.0.3 rc
Hardware: Other macOS (All)
: medium normal
Assignee: Not Assigned
URL:
Whiteboard: BSA
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2014-07-25 17:01 UTC by retired
Modified: 2016-10-20 11:02 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Crash report or crash signature:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description retired 2014-07-25 17:01:45 UTC
Problem description: Have more than one printer installed. OS X 10.9.4, LO 4.3RC.

Steps to reproduce:
1. Connect only printer1
2. print in LO (printer1 is pre-selected)
3. connect only printer2
4. print in LO (printer1 is pre-selected)

Current behavior: LO does not care which printer is selected. this is pretty annoying since if you have many printers in various locations in which you work, you constantly have to adjust the printer selection.

Expected behavior: OS X knows, which printer currently is connected. Word 2011 on OS X manages to select the correct printer. So it is possible.
Operating System: Mac OS X
Version: 4.3.0.3 rc
Comment 1 Alex Thurgood 2014-07-25 17:11:07 UTC
Reproducible with 2 networked (wire) printers on OSX 10.9.4 and LO 4252.
Comment 2 tommy27 2015-08-17 17:19:06 UTC
is the bug still present with current LibO 5.0.0.5 release?
Comment 3 Alex Thurgood 2015-08-17 17:49:02 UTC
Yep, tested on LO 5.0.0.5 - still there.
Comment 4 steve 2016-10-20 11:02:00 UTC
This seems to work. Tested on macOS 10.12 + LO Version: 5.3.0.0.alpha0+
Build ID: 40fc2c1a0d2ebdf47131651045107c9d5abb850d
CPU Threads: 4; OS Version: Mac OS X 10.12; UI Render: default; 
TinderBox: MacOSX-x86_64@49-TDF, Branch:master, Time: 2016-10-20_06:13:56
Locale: de-DE (de_DE.UTF-8); Calc: group

Alex, could you give this a spin and see if it behaves as expected? If not, please set the bug back to "new"