Exiv2 bug reports

[Andrey Goreev]

I am wondering what darktable, GIMP and other projects relying on exiv2 going to do...


Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
-------- Original message --------From: NeiNei <neinei at gmx.net> Date: 2017-04-28  7:31 AM  (GMT-07:00) To: digiKam - Home Manage your photographs as a professional with the power of open source <digikam-users at kde.org> Subject: Re: Exiv2 bug reports 
Hi there,

the long awaited release of Exiv2 v0.26 should be released today 
according to http://dev.exiv2.org/boards/3/topics/2830
However, I do not know wether or how it will change the situation for 
DigiKam.
As far as I understood Gilles thoroughly checks for alternatives in 
order to ensure a working, evolving and reliable metadata editor for 
DigiKam.

NeiNei

On 25.04.2017 22:38, Gilles Caulier wrote:
> Hi Marcel,
>
> This is a more simple solution, always based to C++ with ExifTool :
>
> http://owl.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/cpp_exiftool/
>
> This basis o this interface must do the job for all common call done by
> digiKam in Exiv2. Of course the tags syntax must be ported from Exiv2 to
> ExifTool.
>
> The second problem is the Perl stuff.. Here, also there is a solution to
> provide a machine compiled Exiftool in digiKam as a ressource. This will
> improve very well the performances. As i can see, LightRoom use this
> solution in background (yes I see Exiftool used while testing).
>
> ExifTool.exe precompiled already exists for Windows for ex. So it's
> possible to do for all platforms.
>
> There is some reponse about this topic here :
>
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1237286/how-can-i-compile-my-perl-script-so-it-can-be-executed-on-systems-without-perl-i
>
> Gilles
>
> 2017-04-25 12:53 GMT+02:00 Marcel Wiesweg <marcel.wiesweg at gmx.de
> <mailto:marcel.wiesweg at gmx.de>>:
>
>     Gilles, just my viewpoint from someone who used to code a little bit
>     at free
>     time:
>
>     Using an out-of-process solution like exiftool has the bonus that
>     crashes dont
>     crash digikam.
>     It has the drawback of performance; metadata reading is quite
>     expensive in
>     some situations. Inter-process communication can be a pain.
>
>     If it's based on Perl, this can be a problem for easy deploying on other
>     platforms. And I dont know if you speak Perl really well.
>
>     We have invested greatly in our exiv2-based infrastructure. There
>     are hundreds
>     of bug fixes and problem solutions in the code that depends directly
>     on exiv2
>     via C++.
>
>     In order to port all this logic, and to optimize IPC, you'd need
>     custom parts
>     in the other process - probably written in Perl? - that need to be
>     developed
>     by digikam and kept up to date with digikam.
>
>     In the end, make a calculation if all this work is really worth it.
>
>
>     Marcel
>
>     >
>     > I seriously plan Exiftool migration. It will take a while but at least
>     > Exiftool is alive and constructive... I'm in contact with Exiftool
>     team...
>     >
>     > Voilà. This is just the viewpoint from an human who code a little
>     bit at
>     > free time...
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/digikam-users/attachments/20170428/792377e4/attachment.html>