Compiling digikam 8.2

[Benoit]

The only reason I'm compiling is because version 8.2 isn't available as
a debian package. 
For digikam 8.1 I had compiled the package sources, from
trixie(testing), to make a backport in bookworm(stable)...

https://packages.debian.org/trixie/digikam

As for appimages, they're compiled statically,  if you have a lot of
software with appimages, you use more disk space, because the libraries
aren't shared.

--
Benoît

Le lundi 11 décembre 2023 à 14:12 +0000, Dougie Nisbet a écrit :
> I'm running Debian bookworm so so possibly similar setup to yours.
> I've 
> just had a look and I don't have the digikam-data package installed
> and 
> I can run digikam fine. The only difference I see is that I installed
> systemwide but I can run the binary ok from the source directory too,
> so 
> perhaps there's something else going on with your setup.
> 
> My approach to installing something from source isn't very 
> sophisticated. I just keep trying, then fix the broken dependencies, 
> then try again. I often find that something like 'apt build-dep
> digikam' 
> helps to get the dependencies installed.
> 
> I don't mean to hijack your thread but I have a related question.
> 
> Normally I like to compile from the source. No rational reason. I
> just 
> have a feeling that it's perhaps more efficient and possibly less 
> problematic with permissions if the appimage does any strange
> sandboxing 
> of the environment - although I've seen this more trying to use snap
> and 
> flatpack.
> 
> Recently I was trying to narrow down a problem I was having with 
> georeferencing and as part of my diagnostics I was switching between 
> using my compiled version of digiKam and the appimage. It made no 
> difference to the problem although I did notice a couple of subtle 
> dialogue differences between the versions (both 8.2). It also had me 
> questioning why I bother compiling, and whether there is any
> advantage 
> to using a compiled image rather than the appimage. I didn't do any 
> extensive testing but I could see no performance or any other 
> difference. My take-away is that in future I'll probably just stick
> with 
> the appimage.
> 
> 
> Dougie
> 
> On 11/12/2023 10:49, Benoit wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > Many thanks to the developers for digiKam version 8.2. :-)
> > 
> > I've just compiled it for Debian and I'm have a few problems:
> > - The 8.2 binary do not start without the debian digikam-data
> > package,
> > which can be found in the attachment below:
> > dpkg -L digikam-data > digikam-data.txt
> > 
> > When I compile software, I don't install it as root, I just create
> > a
> > symbolic link to the binaries in path in my user directory.
> > 
> > How can I retrieve the files contained in digikam-data (in the
> > sources?) and ensure that the binary has access to them?
> > 
> > Same question for the plugins, which have been compiled in :
> > /home/benoit/local/build/digikam/digikam-8.2.0/build/bin
> > When I do Settings → Configure digikam → Plugins
> > There are not listed.
> > How do I get them right under the tabs (generic | Image editor|
> > Batch
> > queue manager| Image loader)?
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> >