On December 15, 2015 01:32:49 PM Eric Valette wrote:
> On 12/15/2015 07:29 AM, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> > Anyway, despite Eric V's advice to jump to digikam 5, I went ahead and did
> > a local rebuild of digikam 4.14 and it seems to run fine.
> What's the benefice of taking this path? Developpers are now focussed on
> digikam 5 and the beta2 is already working fine.

I realize that the developers are focused on Digikam v5; yet, it is still 
labelled as "beta".  Moreover the 5.0.0-beta2 release announcement [1] ends 
with "This version is for testing purposes. It’s not currently advised to use 
it in production."

[1] https://www.digikam.org/node/749

This is enough for me to stick with v4 at this point.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

pkg-kde-extras mailing list

Reply via email to