Anecdotal evidence suggests that a single EnumPrinters() call

specifying both PRINTER_ENUM_LOCAL and PRINTER_ENUM_CONNECTIONS
catches more printers in some circumstances than two EnumPrinters()
calls each specifying just one of them. We'll try it for a bit; if
it goes wrong I might have to put back the two original calls as
well and sort out some means of removing duplicate printers from the
list.

[originally from svn r1829]

diff --git a/printing.c b/printing.c
index d40e2ac000f72fe265d95d7cdf82161ac5f667d2..964f4b5235d727a10995efa6be1ca3a1d3374cc6 100644 (file)
--- a/printing.c
+++ b/printing.c
@@ -65,14 +65,8 @@ printer_enum *printer_start_enum(int *nprinters_ptr)
     *nprinters_ptr = 0;                       /* default return value */
     buffer = smalloc(512);
 
-    retval = printer_add_enum(PRINTER_ENUM_LOCAL, buffer, 0, nprinters_ptr);
-    if (!retval)
-        goto error;
-    else
-        buffer = retval;
-    retval = printer_add_enum(PRINTER_ENUM_CONNECTIONS, buffer,
-                              sizeof(ENUM_TYPE) * *nprinters_ptr,
-                              nprinters_ptr);
+    retval = printer_add_enum(PRINTER_ENUM_LOCAL | PRINTER_ENUM_CONNECTIONS,
+                             buffer, 0, nprinters_ptr);
     if (!retval)
         goto error;
     else