Digikam file management

On Thursday 30 July 2009 14:24:10 Marcel Wiesweg wrote:
> Btw, it would a pretty simple job for a KIPI plugin to "Create folder with
> symlinks" of the current (virtual) album in digikam.

That requires C++ knowledge (binary compatibility etc.)... Actions system
known from Konq would allow to use anything user wants.

m.
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

On Thursday 30 July 2009 11:45:15 Markus Spring wrote:

> Mikolaj Machowski schrieb:
> >> 3 cases:
> >> * burn a cd - impossible from tags only
> >> * create an album with for example Jalbum
> >
> > In those two cases definitely should be fixed in digiKam handling of tags
> > and not by introducing non-portable, hackish feature.
>
> I would not use the word "hackish" for a major feature of unix file
> systems. Talking about hard links, I see it these a rather intelligent way
> to save space while providing the same file at different locations.
> symlinks are a bit more difficult to handle but still work perfectly at the
> basis of our operating system. That their implementation in Windows is
> broken by design is not a problem of the symlinks.

For me it is "hackish" if requires completely different approach for the same
functionality when on different but equally supported platforms.

> I am not shure if the approach to do everything from inside digikam is
> really a good one. Unix grew on the principle of having small dedicated
> tools that could be stacked. I do not see why this should not be valid any
> more.

That is why - for a long time - I am asking for Actions system.

> > BTW - don't know how exactly JAblum works but if it can accept list of
> > files from command line you can use "Open with..." menu.
>
> No, as far as I know Jalbum works with its own file-open dialog.

Well, for me  this is JAlbum problem. Works on *nix - should provide
traditional way of working on *nix. Command-line with list of files.

m.
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[stefan-119]

> This probably can considered as a bug, but I see it as a widely used  
>  behaviour
> pattern, used to avoid data loss in the most critical phase of  
> program execution
> of writing modified content.
>
> just checked the gimp: it indeed writes the file directly. So there  
> definitely is confusion ahead.

The modification of a copy instead of the real file to prevent data  
loss in case of failure while editing is a savety feature no one would  
dare to remove. I don't think gimp does otherwise.

It's just that the modified copy can replace the old file, leading to  
a new independent copy, or the content of the modified copy can be  
written (as a whole) into the old file. This would preserve the  
hardlink and modify all linked files.
Nevertheless it would be a short atomic action at the end of the  
editing preventing data loss.

If saving a whole image is to time consuming, you can of course make a  
diff of old and new file and then alter the original file. This would  
lead to even shorter 'dangerous' write time.

But, again, I'm not a developer. I'm not even a user yet....

Stefan




_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Vlado Plaga]

Am Thu, 30 Jul 2009 08:48:01 +0200
schrieb [hidden email]:

> Nobody has build a ready to use MacOSX package for beta3 yet, right?  
> So lets start doing it the long way then ...

I compiled digiKam 0.10.0 with MacPorts and provided my Portfile for
inclusion in the MacPorts system:
http://trac.macports.org/attachment/ticket/20315/digikam_0.10.0

I don't know if you already use MacPorts, but searching and installing
all the dependencies by hand sounds like way too much work to me.

I have a Portfile for "beta 2", which I now changed to "beta 3", and
attached to this e-mail.

The problem is, as mentioned in the comment to the Portfile, that "beta
2" did not run stable at all on my Mac. Similarly, "beta 2" and "beta3"
don't run at all on my computer in Debian unstable (PPC). I also tried
to compile both myself, but then most menu entries where missing and no
thumbnails displayed in the albums.

I haven't finished compiling "beta 3" on Mac OS yet, but since that
might take a few hours, I'm already sending this e-mail now. At least
it downloaded the sources and started compiling.

For just testing the basic digiKam functionality, it might be easier to
download a GNU/Linux live CD, though. You can install additional
software like digiKam in a live system (no installation on hard disk)
with e.g. Ubuntu (http://www.ubuntu.com/). Ubuntu 9.04 contains a
working DigiKam 0.10.0 package (which for me seems much more stable
than the same version on Mac OS).

Regards,
Vlado

--

       Vlado Plaga                        __o
    http://vlado-do.de                 _o/\<,_
    update: 14.03.2009                 (U)/ (u)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Vlado Plaga]

Am Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:25:01 +0200
schrieb Vlado Plaga <[hidden email]>:

> I haven't finished compiling "beta 3" on Mac OS yet, but since that
> might take a few hours, I'm already sending this e-mail now. At least
> it downloaded the sources and started compiling.

Now compilation finished, but the program again crashes immediately
after startup.

Note: I had to manually patch
digikam-1.0.0-beta3/libs/3rdparty/lqr/lqr_energy_priv.h

like this:
http://trac.macports.org/browser/trunk/dports/graphics/liblqr/files/patch-lqr__lqr_energy_priv.h?rev=51312

The author of liblqr is aware of the problem, so in the next release it
should be fixed:
http://liblqr.wikidot.com/forum/t-169529/small-patch-needed-to-compile-liblqr-on-mac-os:change-upstream-package

I guess it is something of a philosophical question why digiKam brings
its own private version of a library, instead of using the system
version (which in MacOS/MacPorts is already patched)... or why
functionality such as this is included at all, although everyone using
digiKam might as well use the Gimp for complex image editing functions.

Regards,
Vlado

--

       Vlado Plaga                        __o
    http://vlado-do.de                 _o/\<,_
    update: 14.03.2009                 (U)/ (u)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[stefan-119]

Hi there,


I've also managed to build on OS X.

I had to jump just some more hoops to get it going. Some dependencies  
of kde need a ggc 4.2 to compile,
while on Mac OS 10.4 (Tiger) the newest one to be delivered with  
xcode is 4.0.

So you have to get the apple-gcc42 package of macports and then start  
the compilation by typing

sudo port install digikam configure.compiler = apple-gcc-4.2

After that (and of course patching lqr as mentioned) digikam builds.
Before starting it you have to register some processes and start some  
daemons as told
be the notes to all the kde packages you installed with macports.

One file to load was a .plist which actually won't load right away.  
There was a active=no line in it which I had to change to make it work.

Digikam starts then if you manage to locate the executable in
/opt/local/var/macports/software/digikam/1.0.0-beta3_0+darwin_8/
Applications/MacPorts/KDE4


But it's unstable as hell. I usually get about 5 clicks until  
something makes it go down. Last time it took quite an amount of OS X  
with it, leaving me at a new login window.
Therefor my unsaved notes in a text editor were lost and the command  
line given above is made up from memory.
If I just be very carefully with my clicks it just stops loading  
preview thumbnails after about 5 pictures.

As the whole build with all the dependencies took about two days, I  
gave it a try on a windows machine while waiting.
Of course there is no prebuild binary either. The website says so,  
but just redirects to the kde-on-windows site offering in 'kde  
installer', which just as macports compiles things from source.
Albeit said on the website, there is no beta3 package availiable  
within the 'kde installer', so I took the beta1.

It actually builds and starts! But it kept spitting error messages  
about not being able to connect to the dbus server with every other  
dialog box. That's probably the kde installers fault, which just  
didn't succeeded in preparing the whole kde environment.

If this is the state of being for the final release of digikam 1.0.0,  
you better scratch that 'multi platform' off the website. Digikam is  
strictly mono-platform, and this platform is KDE.
Whatever the KDE guys are saying, just because QT4 would enable it to  
run on other platforms than a KDE-based linux desktop theoretically,  
it is just not true at the moment.

So, while giving the older, non-beta releases another try, I have two  
questions:

Is anybody testing and developing on Mac OS X or even windows  
machines and therefor interested in bug reports?
Will the whole multi platform thing in general be actively supported  
by digikam, or just used as a sort of marketing buzzword and then  
rolled off to the KDE guys?

Thanks for the work done anyway, and willing to deliver those bug  
reports if wanted,

Stefan


Am 30.07.2009 um 23:20 schrieb Vlado Plaga:

> Am Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:25:01 +0200
> schrieb Vlado Plaga <[hidden email]>:
>
>> I haven't finished compiling "beta 3" on Mac OS yet, but since that
>> might take a few hours, I'm already sending this e-mail now. At least
>> it downloaded the sources and started compiling.
>
> Now compilation finished, but the program again crashes immediately
> after startup.
>
> Note: I had to manually patch
> digikam-1.0.0-beta3/libs/3rdparty/lqr/lqr_energy_priv.h
>
> like this:
> http://trac.macports.org/browser/trunk/dports/graphics/liblqr/files/ 
> patch-lqr__lqr_energy_priv.h?rev=51312
>
> The author of liblqr is aware of the problem, so in the next  
> release it
> should be fixed:
> http://liblqr.wikidot.com/forum/t-169529/small-patch-needed-to- 
> compile-liblqr-on-mac-os:change-upstream-package
>
> I guess it is something of a philosophical question why digiKam brings
> its own private version of a library, instead of using the system
> version (which in MacOS/MacPorts is already patched)... or why
> functionality such as this is included at all, although everyone using
> digiKam might as well use the Gimp for complex image editing  
> functions.
>
> Regards,
> Vlado
>
> --
>
>        Vlado Plaga                        __o
>     http://vlado-do.de                 _o/\<,_
>     update: 14.03.2009                 (U)/ (u)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> _______________________________________________
> Digikam-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Marcel Wiesweg]

> But it's unstable as hell. I usually get about 5 clicks until
> something makes it go down. Last time it took quite an amount of OS X
> with it, leaving me at a new login window.
> Therefor my unsaved notes in a text editor were lost and the command
> line given above is made up from memory.
> If I just be very carefully with my clicks it just stops loading
> preview thumbnails after about 5 pictures
>
> As the whole build with all the dependencies took about two days, I
> gave it a try on a windows machine while waiting.
> Of course there is no prebuild binary either. The website says so,
> but just redirects to the kde-on-windows site offering in 'kde
> installer', which just as macports compiles things from source.
> Albeit said on the website, there is no beta3 package availiable
> within the 'kde installer', so I took the beta1.
>
> It actually builds and starts! But it kept spitting error messages
> about not being able to connect to the dbus server with every other
> dialog box. That's probably the kde installers fault, which just
> didn't succeeded in preparing the whole kde environment.

I can't comment on KDE-on-Windows status. There was some trouble with writing
a native DBus implementation.

>
> If this is the state of being for the final release of digikam 1.0.0,
> you better scratch that 'multi platform' off the website. Digikam is
> strictly mono-platform, and this platform is KDE.
> Whatever the KDE guys are saying, just because QT4 would enable it to
> run on other platforms than a KDE-based linux desktop theoretically,
> it is just not true at the moment.

I dont know about the current state but 0.10.0 was patched and tested by one
of the KDE/Windows developers.

>
> So, while giving the older, non-beta releases another try, I have two
> questions:
>
> Is anybody testing and developing on Mac OS X or even windows
> machines and therefor interested in bug reports?

Noone of us has Mac OS X available, Gilles has been testing on Windows. (I
could too, but have been lacking interest).
If you have a nice crash log just report it. If noone reports we think all is
well. If someone reports, we may do something about it (especially if it's a
crash with a good backtrace) - but keep in mind the problem that we can't
test.

> Will the whole multi platform thing in general be actively supported
> by digikam, or just used as a sort of marketing buzzword and then
> rolled off to the KDE guys?

We don't roll off stuff, but if problems are caused by bugs in kdelibs or one
of the pretty large number of depending libraries, in some cases we can help
(like the recent bug in libpgf) but sometimes we can just tag the bug with the
correct address.

>
> Thanks for the work done anyway, and willing to deliver those bug
> reports if wanted,
>
> Stefan
>
> Am 30.07.2009 um 23:20 schrieb Vlado Plaga:
> > Am Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:25:01 +0200
> >
> > schrieb Vlado Plaga <[hidden email]>:
> >> I haven't finished compiling "beta 3" on Mac OS yet, but since that
> >> might take a few hours, I'm already sending this e-mail now. At least
> >> it downloaded the sources and started compiling.
> >
> > Now compilation finished, but the program again crashes immediately
> > after startup.
> >
> > Note: I had to manually patch
> > digikam-1.0.0-beta3/libs/3rdparty/lqr/lqr_energy_priv.h
> >
> > like this:
> > http://trac.macports.org/browser/trunk/dports/graphics/liblqr/files/
> > patch-lqr__lqr_energy_priv.h?rev=51312
> >
> > The author of liblqr is aware of the problem, so in the next
> > release it
> > should be fixed:
> > http://liblqr.wikidot.com/forum/t-169529/small-patch-needed-to-
> > compile-liblqr-on-mac-os:change-upstream-package
> >
> > I guess it is something of a philosophical question why digiKam brings
> > its own private version of a library, instead of using the system
> > version (which in MacOS/MacPorts is already patched)...

Probably because it was not available on major distributions at the start of
development

> > or why
> > functionality such as this is included at all, although everyone using
> > digiKam might as well use the Gimp for complex image editing
> > functions.

We have a defined niche for our image editing functionality. We do not intend
to be like Gimp, Krita (no multilayer, no tiles etc.) but we dont restrict the
editor to crop+scale. You are free to use The Gimp.



_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

On Monday 03 August 2009 18:52:28 Marcel Wiesweg wrote:
machines and therefor interested in bug reports?
> Noone of us has Mac OS X available, Gilles has been testing on Windows. (I
> could too, but have been lacking interest).
> If you have a nice crash log just report it. If noone reports we think all
> is well. If someone reports, we may do something about it (especially if
> it's a crash with a good backtrace) - but keep in mind the problem that we
> can't test.

I have Mac OS X here, but since developing under Windows was already a pain, I
never compiled digiKam under Mac. Maybe I should try to do so...

Andi

_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Vlado Plaga]

Hi Stefan (and others reading this),

I'm surprised to read that you actually did go through the long and
tedious process of building digiKam on both Mac OS and Windows!

Am Mon, 3 Aug 2009 14:50:25 +0200
schrieb Stefan Aschenbach <[hidden email]>:

> But it's unstable as hell.

That is very different from digiKam on Mac OS 10.5, which is quite
usable. I had a few crashes, for example when deleting an album with
pictures in it (reproducible), but I can create albums, add ratings and
tags, use filters, copy pictures... so it is usable, and it is looking
very neat.

By the way: I just noticed Fink already has a digiKam package - but it
is still in unstable (source only), so you might have the same problems
you had with MacPorts.

http://pdb.finkproject.org/pdb/package.php/digikam-mac

> As the whole build with all the dependencies took about two days, I  
> gave it a try on a windows machine while waiting.

Apparently you also still have an old PPC machine. ;-)

If I had an intel mac, I'd be only using Linux by now, but there is no
3d drivers, no Adobe Flash, and no stand-by mode for my iMac when using
Linux, so I like having a dual-boot system with my core applications
available on both systems.

I really don't use M$ Windows, except for testing my web sites in that
damn Internet Explorer.

My opinion on porting digiKam (or other free software) to non-free
operating systems is ambivalent:

On the one hand, we cannot expect developers to pay money just to test
their programs in non-free systems (I paid about EUR 160 for this Mac
OS, and that is without the hardware!). I also kind of like having
great software for me that is not available to people who are not
willing to use free operating systems (elite / punishment thinking).

On the other hand free software projects like Firefox or VLC, which are
nowadays used millions of ordinary Windows users, do much more for the
popularity of free software than the best Linux-only program could ever
do. So I think ports to non-free systems should be made, if possible,
until the majority of users finally works on free systems (which would
imply hardware support for free systems by all companies that want to
sell their computer hardware to as many customers as possible).

Vlado

_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[stefan-119]

Hi Vlado,

> That is very different from digiKam on Mac OS 10.5, which is quite
> usable.

I can't test this, as I'm still using Tiger here. But actually it  
surprises me, as QT never mentioned any problems between 10.4 and 10.5  
system.


> By the way: I just noticed Fink already has a digiKam package - but it
> is still in unstable (source only), so you might have the same problems
> you had with MacPorts.

I tried the fink install already, which gives me a 0.9.3 if I remember  
correctly. So this was probably the stable tree.

>> As the whole build with all the dependencies took about two days, I
>> gave it a try on a windows machine while waiting.
>
> Apparently you also still have an old PPC machine. ;-)

I do, but the testing was done with a Core2Duo MBP. Two days doesn't  
mean 48h, but my freetime in two days. The big kde packages still take  
more than an hour each.


>
> If I had an intel mac, I'd be only using Linux by now, but there is no
> 3d drivers, no Adobe Flash, and no stand-by mode for my iMac when using
> Linux, so I like having a dual-boot system with my core applications
> available on both systems.
>
> I really don't use M$ Windows, except for testing my web sites in that
> damn Internet Explorer.

I'm quite versatile here. I'm using Linux at work, Mac at home and  
Windows for games. The Mac being my main machine also has windows and  
linux as VMs for the quick run and a windows as dual boot for games on  
the go. The other windows machine sometimes gets used for  
computational intensive tasks like encoding or rendering, because it's  
the most powerfull one. I now and then test desktop linuxes, but none  
have delivered just the usability Mac OS does (to me), despite  coming  
a long way since its humble beginnings.

> On the one hand, we cannot expect developers to pay money just to test
> their programs in non-free systems (I paid about EUR 160 for this Mac
> OS, and that is without the hardware!). I also kind of like having
> great software for me that is not available to people who are not
> willing to use free operating systems (elite / punishment thinking).
>
> On the other hand free software projects like Firefox or VLC, which are
> nowadays used millions of ordinary Windows users, do much more for the
> popularity of free software than the best Linux-only program could ever
> do. So I think ports to non-free systems should be made, if possible,
> until the majority of users finally works on free systems (which would
> imply hardware support for free systems by all companies that want to
> sell their computer hardware to as many customers as possible).

I understand your point there. But actually you are using software  
such as digikam as a leverage to push/pull linux, which I think is a  
bit unfair to digikam. Of course it is your call as a developer to  
decide for which operating system you develop your software. And if  
your goal with digikam is to promote linux, than do as you like. But I  
thought the goal of digikam is to be a great piece of software for  
photographers and photo enthusiasts.

At least you should lose those 'for linux, mac and windows' headlines  
on the website then.

I just deleted the paragraph I wrote about why I like the Mac, 'cause  
it's not constructive here for digikam. The pros and cons of operating  
systems don't need to be discussed on this mailing list.

Lets sum it up then: I would like to use digikam on my Mac. If you  
would like to have at least one user of digikam more, then please put  
some of your effort in the testing on Mac. I'm willing to deliver my  
share of work by giving feedback and bug reports. It's your call. If  
you say you are just supporting the most recent versions like 10.5,  
than that's fair and I have to do my part first.

Whatever you do: Just for fun I'm now looking through your code and  
try to assemble something like 'digikam-light' for Mac. The chances to  
succeed are remote, but I'm aiming at stripping down the KDE  
dependencys as much as possible while loosing the editing and plugin  
functions to get a OS X native application.
But I'm not a full time software developer, so I'm quite slow with that.

Thanks again for the work done so far on digikam,

Stefan



_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Vlado Plaga]

Am Tue, 04 Aug 2009 08:13:51 +0200
schrieb [hidden email]:

> > That is very different from digiKam on Mac OS 10.5, which is quite
> > usable.
>
> I can't test this, as I'm still using Tiger here. But actually it  
> surprises me, as QT never mentioned any problems between 10.4 and 10.5  
> system.

I don't know what is causing the problems: it might not be QT itself.

> I tried the fink install already, which gives me a 0.9.3 if I remember  
> correctly. So this was probably the stable tree.

Probably. There is 0.10.0 in the unstable tree.

[...]

> I understand your point there. But actually you are using software  
> such as digikam as a leverage to push/pull linux, which I think is a  
> bit unfair to digikam. Of course it is your call as a developer to  
> decide for which operating system you develop your software. And if  
> your goal with digikam is to promote linux, than do as you like. But I  
> thought the goal of digikam is to be a great piece of software for  
> photographers and photo enthusiasts.

I'm not a digiKam developer, I just started promoting it. You are right
to write that this should not become a long discussion about the pros
and cons of operating systems. Let me just say that for me as a
keyboard affine user who now uses Linux for about 10 years, and liked
the concept of multiple workspaces from the start (which Apple
introduced only in Mac OS 10.5 as "Spaces"), Mac OS was always only a
fallback-solution because of the better hardware support (for my 17"
iMac, which was the most reasonable and beautiful computer I could
think of in 2004). But the Mac OS 10.2 that came with it was crap, and
not supported for very long. I never had Mac OS 10.3 or 10.4.

Anyway, the best way to make great software like digiKam available to
photographers around the world is by making free operating systems
better, for millions of people world-wide can afford reasonable
computer and photography hardware (starting at let's say $100 each,
if bought second-hand), but not spending the same amount of money on
software (every three years, if using Apple). Free systems (not just
GNU/Linux, but also BSD etc.) will improve faster (and get better
hardware support) when more people use them.

> At least you should lose those 'for linux, mac and windows' headlines  
> on the website then.
>
> I just deleted the paragraph I wrote about why I like the Mac, 'cause  
> it's not constructive here for digikam. The pros and cons of operating  
> systems don't need to be discussed on this mailing list.
>
> Lets sum it up then: I would like to use digikam on my Mac. If you  
> would like to have at least one user of digikam more, then please put  
> some of your effort in the testing on Mac. I'm willing to deliver my  
> share of work by giving feedback and bug reports. It's your call. If  
> you say you are just supporting the most recent versions like 10.5,  
> than that's fair and I have to do my part first.
>
> Whatever you do: Just for fun I'm now looking through your code and  
> try to assemble something like 'digikam-light' for Mac. The chances to  
> succeed are remote, but I'm aiming at stripping down the KDE  
> dependencys as much as possible while loosing the editing and plugin  
> functions to get a OS X native application.
> But I'm not a full time software developer, so I'm quite slow with that.

I'm not really a developer at all, but digiKam core developer Andi
Clemens already answered to your message on the list he might look into
compiling digiKam on Mac OS again. So to me supporting these effords by
testing and giving feedback seems like a better idea than creating your
own "fork".

As I said digiKam 0.10.0 is already running all right on Mac OS 10.5,
and Mac OS 10.4 support is going to be dropped by pretty much everyone
very soon after the introduction of 10.6 this September anyway, I
suppose, if everything goes on like before, in the Apple world. Or is
there still anyone supporting 10.3 now? Not Apple (with iTunes, Safari
etc), not Mozilla (with Firefox), not OpenOffice.org, not MacPorts or
Fink...

> Thanks again for the work done so far on digikam,
>
> Stefan

I'm also thankful to all the digiKam developers, who created one of the
best KDE 4 applications I've seen so far! Keep up the good work!

Vlado
_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[stefan-119]

Hi Vlado,

>
> I'm not a digiKam developer, I just started promoting it. You are right
> to write that this should not become a long discussion about the pros
> and cons of operating systems. Let me just say that for me as a
> keyboard affine user who now uses Linux for about 10 years, and liked
> the concept of multiple workspaces from the start (which Apple
> introduced only in Mac OS 10.5 as "Spaces"), Mac OS was always only a
> fallback-solution because of the better hardware support (for my 17"
> iMac, which was the most reasonable and beautiful computer I could
> think of in 2004). But the Mac OS 10.2 that came with it was crap, and
> not supported for very long. I never had Mac OS 10.3 or 10.4.

Sorry that I missjudged your position in this. I thought you were one  
of the digikam developers.

I used linux as my main operating system for some time and liked it  
really well. It was a major improvement to working with windows, and  
while at the university I still had the time to tinker with the system  
until it fitted my needs.

I switched to 10.3 with a Powerbook and then to 10.4 with a MBP, and  
found that I could be just as productive as with linux, without the  
additional time needed for maintainance. But that is purely  
subjective, as I am not a keyboard affine user (I have a bad memory  
for shortcuts) and the 'functional eyecandy' really pleases me. And  
Quicksilver + Expose fully replaces multiple workspaces for me.

Of course an open source Mac OS would be even better, but a closed  
source Mac still(!) superseeds an open source linux for me. Sorry.

>
> Anyway, the best way to make great software like digiKam available to
> photographers around the world is by making free operating systems
> better, for millions of people world-wide can afford reasonable
> computer and photography hardware (starting at let's say $100 each,
> if bought second-hand), but not spending the same amount of money on
> software (every three years, if using Apple). Free systems (not just
> GNU/Linux, but also BSD etc.) will improve faster (and get better
> hardware support) when more people use them.
>

I'm with you there in general. But I'm clearly to selfish to use linux  
just for this idealistic reasons if it's not giving ME any pros. But  
you got me far enough to try out another install the next time. Maybe  
they've come the next step.


> As I said digiKam 0.10.0 is already running all right on Mac OS 10.5,
> and Mac OS 10.4 support is going to be dropped by pretty much everyone
> very soon after the introduction of 10.6 this September anyway, I
> suppose, if everything goes on like before, in the Apple world. Or is
> there still anyone supporting 10.3 now? Not Apple (with iTunes, Safari
> etc), not Mozilla (with Firefox), not OpenOffice.org, not MacPorts or
> Fink...
>
I know I'm quite outdated with my 10.4, but I tend to get new versions  
by buying new hardware, and unfortunatly the MBP still works well.  
Lets see when the situation gets pressing.


> So to me supporting these effords by
> testing and giving feedback seems like a better idea than creating your
> own "fork".
>
I've already written the ticket on my latest crash. The 'fork' is just  
for personal use as a 'backup' until digikam itself has improved  
enough to be usable for me. (Whathever comes first) Maybe setting up a  
development environment on my Mac even shows something which can be  
helpfull to the official version? It's testing too after all.

The mailing list is not as crowded as others, but lets keep the OS  
discussion out of it for now. Feel free to write to my private address  
if you like.
Just keep it to digikam related stuff, I'll try my best to do the same, too.

Best regards,

Stefan





_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[stefan-119]

Hi all and Vlado,

By the way: I just noticed Fink already has a digiKam package - but it

is still in unstable (source only), so you might have the same problems

you had with MacPorts.

http://pdb.finkproject.org/pdb/package.php/digikam-mac

I took a closer look on that. Its 0.10.0-4, not 1.0.0 beta 4.

Same digits, different number.

So the last release availiable from fink still is 0.9.5-1009.

And this is even in the stable tree.

regards,

Stefan

_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users

[Gilles Caulier-4]

I already compiled and fixed code under MACOS-X, few month ago. A
digiKam fan from USA share with me a MAc computer around the web and i
can test compilation of digiKam and kipi-plugins. All is compiled
using GCC for mac.

Running is different. It's more complicated, but i know people who run
digiKam as well, without any problem.

About, Windows, i have 2 computer at home to do it : one under Vista,
one under XP. XP is more simple to handle, Vista is an horse. Under
Vista, you need to play with registration base to disable any runtime
check, especially with kioslave.

I use GCC or MSVC under windows without problem, but i never use
kde-windows procedure to compile. I use the same way than Linux : i
compile and install from command line as well. That all. And it's work
perfectly.

Best

Gilles Caulier

2009/8/3 Andi Clemens <[hidden email]>:

>
> On Monday 03 August 2009 18:52:28 Marcel Wiesweg wrote:
> machines and therefor interested in bug reports?
>> Noone of us has Mac OS X available, Gilles has been testing on Windows. (I
>> could too, but have been lacking interest).
>> If you have a nice crash log just report it. If noone reports we think all
>> is well. If someone reports, we may do something about it (especially if
>> it's a crash with a good backtrace) - but keep in mind the problem that we
>> can't test.
>
> I have Mac OS X here, but since developing under Windows was already a pain, I
> never compiled digiKam under Mac. Maybe I should try to do so...
>
> Andi
>
> _______________________________________________
> Digikam-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users
>

_______________________________________________
Digikam-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/digikam-users