[Pkg-kde-extras] Bug#893515: digikam: FTBFS with kdepim 17.12.2

[Steve Robbins]

On Sunday, April 8, 2018 1:25:42 PM CDT Simon Frei wrote:
> I totally understand that, I am just trying to get infos to you as
> debian maintainer from my (at the moment admittedly almost non-existing)
> involvement upstream. Exiv2 0.26 will likely not get into testing.
> Upstream does backport a lot of security fixes to 0.26, but negated
> creating a dot release on request, and is focussing on 0.27. It was
> planned to release an rc in early 2018, but from what I read in the
> issue tracker, that's not going to happen asap.

Yes, fair enough.   I'm not entirely opposed to patching digikam to accept the 
older exiv2.  That was going to be my Plan B in any case, but you make a good 
case to do it immediately and work on updating exiv2 in parallel.

-S
 


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
pkg-kde-extras mailing list
pkg-kde-extras@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-extras

[Pkg-kde-extras] Bug#893515: digikam: FTBFS with kdepim 17.12.2

[Steve Robbins]

On Monday, March 19, 2018 10:48:38 AM CDT you wrote:

> digikam 5.6.0-4 can't be compiled with KDE Pim 17.12.2, it failes
> because kcalcore was been refactored to use QDateTime instead of
> KDateTime. 

I have DigiKam 5.9.0 compiled locally and it works.  Unfortunately, it depends 
on exiv2 0.26 that only exists in experimental.  So the digikam upload will 
also be to experimental.

-Steve


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
pkg-kde-extras mailing list
pkg-kde-extras@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-extras

[Pkg-kde-extras] exiv2 0.26

[Steve Robbins]

Hi,

The 0.26 release was uploaded to Experimental in July.  I'd like to see it get 
uploaded to 
Unstable, for use by Digikam 5.7.  How may I help?

There are currently 5 RC bugs -- one due to a gcc 7 change, one due to symbols 
file, and 3 
CVEs.  The upstream git repo has an 0.26 branch that has quite a lot of 
activity since 
October, including fixes for at least some of the CVEs. 

I just did a build with current upstream 0.26 and the gcc 7 issue is gone.  

The Digikam 5.7 upload to Experimental is built against 0.26 and I've been 
using it on my 
system for months without apparent issue.  

As a proposal: how about uploading a new 0.26 source from the upstream git?   
If that's 
acceptable, I could prepare the upload -- I have some time in the next week.

Best,
-Steve



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
pkg-kde-extras mailing list
pkg-kde-extras@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-extras

[Pkg-kde-extras] Bug#834131: digikam: no video playback and no video thumbnails

[Steve Robbins]

Yes.   I have been waiting for qtav to enter Debian.   That just happened this 
week.  So next upload should have video again.

On November 4, 2017 8:44:29 AM CDT, Marcel Dischinger  wrote:
>Package: digikam
>Version: 4:5.7.0-1
>Followup-For: Bug #834131
>
>Since version 5.6.0 video thumbnails and playback are broken again
>(worked for me for the versions before with the libqtmultimedia
>packages).
>
>Digikam release notes state that starting with 5.4.0 qtav is used for
>audio and video files, replacing libqtmultimedia. So I guess a rebuild
>is necessary to enable audio and video support again.

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
pkg-kde-extras mailing list
pkg-kde-extras@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-extras

[Pkg-kde-extras] Bug#879298: Correcting statement about fabo

[Steve Robbins]

Hi Tobias,

Thanks for the correction!

On Tuesday, October 24, 2017 12:08:02 AM CDT you wrote:
> Hallo,
> 
> When I filed the bugs in respect of the maintainer status of Fathi I used
> the wrong switch in the script. I'd like to correct that.
> 
> Fathi has NOT retired, so the sentcne Fathi having retired is wrong.
> 
> it should have read
> 
> Fathi Boudra  has not been working on the $PKG package for
> quite some time.
> 
> I'm sorry for the inconvenience.

No problem.  Is it still the case that you recommend Fathi be removed from the 
uploaders list?

Thanks,
-Steve


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
pkg-kde-extras mailing list
pkg-kde-extras@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-extras

[Pkg-kde-extras] Bug#876154: digikam: FTBFS: error: missing binary operator before token "defined"

[Steve Robbins]

On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 12:27:56 PM CDT Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote:

>  #if not defined(__APPLE__) && defined(__GNUC__)
>  ^~~
> /build/digikam-5.3.0/core/libs/database/imagehistory/imagehistorygraph_boost
> .h:1557:9: error: missing binary operator before token "defined"


> Could you check this problem?

Thanks, confirmed.  It seems that someone has turned on -fno-operator-names.  
This was not present before [1].  RedHat has the same issue reported [2].


[1] https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?
pkg=digikam=amd64=4%3A5.3.0-1=1479074086=0
[2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1423329


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
pkg-kde-extras mailing list
pkg-kde-extras@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-extras

[Pkg-kde-extras] Bug#718908: digikam: Renaming of image files very slow

[Steve Robbins]

On Monday, August 5, 2013 2:24:45 AM CDT Matthias Julius wrote:
> Package: digikam
> Version: 4:2.6.0-1+b2
> Severity: normal
> 
> Dear Maintainer,
> 
> renaming of image files takes more than a second per file. When renaming
> hundreds of files this adds up to a long time. The files are located on
> a NFS share. However, mapivi is doing the same job in a fraction of the
> time.

Does this remain a problem with the newer Digikam 5.x ?

Thanks,
-Steve


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
pkg-kde-extras mailing list
pkg-kde-extras@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-extras

[Pkg-kde-extras] Bug#869148: digikam cannot import photos from iphone

[Steve Robbins]

On Thursday, July 20, 2017 3:39:43 PM CDT Herminio Hernandez Jr wrote:

> I am trying to import my photos from my iphone to my desktop. I plug the
> iphone into the USB port and I see KDE recognizing and asking if I want
> digikam in import. I click on the digikam icon and it the app launches.
> After launch I recieve an error say the device is not recognized. I will
> be attaching a screenshot of the error.

What kind of iPhone is it?  

I see a similar report against OpenSUSE for iPhone 6S that shows the same 
error message; 
seehttp://opensuse.14.x6.nabble.com/Digikam-etc-cannot-upload-from-iPhone-6S-td5078569.html

Of interest is this bit:

[quote]
See also 
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1057040-start-0-postdays-0-postorder-asc-highlight-.html?sid=4e7f17ebc8ac5da89456e92ee46749c5

Apparently it broke with iOS 10 and you need to make sure that the iPhone 
"trusts" your computer so it exposes its filesystem. 
[/quote]

And, as Simon said: let us know if you try it with a newer version.  [which 
reminds me: we need a newer version for Debian ...]

-Steve


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
pkg-kde-extras mailing list
pkg-kde-extras@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-extras

[Pkg-kde-extras] Bug#857421: Many plugins are lost since Jessie

[Steve Robbins]

On Friday, March 10, 2017 12:22:25 PM CDT David Prévot wrote:
> Package: kipi-plugins
> Version: 4:5.3.0-1
> Severity: important
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thank you for taking care of these plugins!
> 
> More than half the plugins advertised in the package description
> (including BatchProcess) seem to have been lost after an upgrade from
> Jessie to Stretch. Indeed, only 15 of them seem available while over 30
> are still present in the package description.

Thanks.  I will have to review this.   I knew a lot of these had gotten left 
behind in the move to KDE Frameworks 5.  I had hoped they would reappear 
eventually, but never did and I forgot to clean up the package description.  
So thanks for the reminder.

> Is there any way to have them back (even individually) in a Stretch
> system (is it a packaging or an upstream issue? 

It's a good question.  I'll have to look into that.

-Steve


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
pkg-kde-extras mailing list
pkg-kde-extras@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-extras

[Pkg-kde-extras] Bug#849830: Bug#849830: [src:digikam] Some sources are not included in your package

[Steve Robbins]

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 2:29:37 AM CST you wrote:
> On Sunday, January 01, 2017 12:59:08 AM Steve Robbins wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 31, 2016 10:06:37 PM CST you wrote:

> > No part of the resulting binary package comes from files that are not in
> > their intended form of modification.  I acknowledge there are extra
> > non-source files in the source tarball *that are not used* to create the
> > binary.
> 
> Speaking as a member of the FTP team, the source needs to be DFSG free to be
> in Main.  Regardless of if it's used in the binary.

To take that position, you need to redefine "source" as essentially any file in 
the upstream tarball, regardless of whether it is used to produce the binary 
packages.   I think most people -- myself included -- would equate "source" 
with "files that are used to produce the binary distribution" (and, for 
avoidance of doubt, this includes config files, doc files used to produce -doc 
packages, etc).

Taking your stronger view requires creating a debian-specific "source" tarball 
that pragmatically gains no extra freedom for the users. 

Moreover I don't find that definition in the DFSG, which says only that: "The 
program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code 
as well as compiled form."

> > > In some cases this could also constitute a license violation for some
> > > copyleft licenses such as the GNU GPL. (While sometimes the licence
> > > allows not to ship the source, the DFSG always mandates source code.)
> > 
> > It requires all sources required to create the binary.  Digikam meets this
> > test.
> 
> No.  It doesn't.  This is a valid bug and one that's not hard to fix.

The GPL defines  “source code” as "the preferred form of the work for making 
modifications to it."   The requirement is that if you provide a covered work, 
you must also provide the source.  There is no restriction in the GPL that 
forbids extraneous non-source files from being provided in the same tarball.  
So, yes: Debian's Digikam meets the GPL requirements.

-Steve


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
pkg-kde-extras mailing list
pkg-kde-extras@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-extras

[Pkg-kde-extras] Bug#849830: [src:digikam] Some sources are not included in your package

[Steve Robbins]

On Saturday, December 31, 2016 10:06:37 PM CST you wrote:

> your package includes some files that seem to lack sources
> in preferred forms of modification (even if removed during clean target).

No part of the resulting binary package comes from files that are not in their 
intended form of modification.  I acknowledge there are extra non-source files 
in the source tarball *that are not used* to create the binary.

> According to Debian Free Software Guidelines [1] (DFSG) #2:
>  "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution
>   in source code as well as compiled form."

Digikam meets this test.

> In some cases this could also constitute a license violation for some
> copyleft licenses such as the GNU GPL. (While sometimes the licence
> allows not to ship the source, the DFSG always mandates source code.)

It requires all sources required to create the binary.  Digikam meets this 
test.

-Steve


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
pkg-kde-extras mailing list
pkg-kde-extras@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-kde-extras