https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=267131
Metal450 <metal...@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |metal...@gmail.com --- Comment #19 from Metal450 <metal...@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Simon from comment #16) > Yes this is still the same. There is no way to move a collection. The > location of a collection is stored in the database, so it has to be manually > adjusted in the database. Currently digikam sees that all files vanished, so > deletes them in database and the only thing you can do is creating a new > collection at the new location, obviously losing all information stored in > the database. A solution within the current framework would be a function > within digikam to move a collection. > In my opinion much better would be to take a different approach at storing > collection locations: Keep them separate from the database either in the > existing or a new configuration file. That means all the paths in the > database should be relative to root and the path to root is stored in this > configuration file. This allows for easily changing the location of a > collection and even for two digikam instances to share a database (not > simultaneously, of course, but if that is a worry, that should be solved by > locking). A use case would be if data and database were shared over a > network and both could be accessed on different computers. Has this been addressed yet? In particular, I'm interested in: "all the paths in the database should be relative to root and the path to root is stored in this configuration file" - for the purpose of sharing one database on a WIn+Linux dual boot machine, rather than needing to maintain double databases & double thumbnails for what is really the same photo collection. For other software, this is how it has always worked: I specify a base path, and as all other paths are relative, the same database can be used by both. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.