<html><head></head><body><div>Thanks, Gilles!</div><div><span></span></div><div><br></div><div>On Sat, 2021-11-20 at 10:40 +0100, Gilles Caulier wrote:</div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hi,</div><div><br></div><div>Writing metadata with ExifTool is planned step by step, especially with specific format , video and Raw in first. In bugzilla few files identify the cases to use ExifTool instead Exiv2.</div><div><br></div><div>Replacing Exiv2 by ExifTool cannot be done, as the metadata engine is fully based on Exiv2 C++ API, and cannot be migrated to ExifTool, as complex operations are done and written in C++. But the reading and writing operation can be delegated to ExifTool. A hub to transform internal metadata containers from Exiv2 to Exiftool and vis-versa is already present but requires more tests to be used safely. So we need more time to validate these kinds of rules.</div><div><br></div><div>Best Regards</div><div><br></div><div>Gilles Caulier<br></div></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Le ven. 19 nov. 2021 à 19:06, Rob Dueckman <<a href="mailto:duke@dukey.org">duke@dukey.org</a>> a écrit :<br></div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div>Is it possible to have Digikam prefer using exiftool for writing metadata over exiv2? It seems exiftool support most if not all the functions of exiv2 and includes more file formats. Is there any reason to keep using exiv2?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><span></span></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></body></html>