[digiKam-users] Erroneously copied tags

[Andrew Goodbody]

I have been doing a lot of tagging over the past few days and I noticed
something strange going on.

I have logged this as a bug here
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=400918

I just thought it would be good to give people a heads up about it as it
can cause a loss of data, which in my book is a very bad thing.

In summary, if you have tagged and untagged images in a selection and
add a tag to that selection. Then tags from the tagged images can be
copied erroneously to the untagged images. This results in tags being
applied to images that should not have them.

This is using digikam 6.0.0-beta1. I do not want to update my source at
the moment to HEAD until Debian has exiv2 0.27 available. At the moment
the latest in experimental is 0.26.

Andrew

[Maik Qualmann]

The problem is already fixed in the git/master version. You can use the
current digiKam also with Exiv2-0.26.

Maik

Am Samstag, 10. November 2018, 18:57:12 CET schrieb Andrew Goodbody:

> I have been doing a lot of tagging over the past few days and I noticed
> something strange going on.
>
> I have logged this as a bug here
> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=400918
>
> I just thought it would be good to give people a heads up about it as it
> can cause a loss of data, which in my book is a very bad thing.
>
> In summary, if you have tagged and untagged images in a selection and
> add a tag to that selection. Then tags from the tagged images can be
> copied erroneously to the untagged images. This results in tags being
> applied to images that should not have them.
>
> This is using digikam 6.0.0-beta1. I do not want to update my source at
> the moment to HEAD until Debian has exiv2 0.27 available. At the moment
> the latest in experimental is 0.26.
>
> Andrew

[Andrew Goodbody]

On 10/11/2018 18:51, Maik Qualmann wrote:
> The problem is already fixed in the git/master version. You can use the
> current digiKam also with Exiv2-0.26.

Thanks for this.

Sorry that I mis-understood an earlier posting that I thought meant you
needed 0.27 now to compile digikam. However on re-reading that thread I
see it just meant that to use 0.27, it had to be the latest 0.27.

That's good I can update my digikam source to HEAD and pick up all the
latest and greatest fixes.

Andrew