https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=418635
--- Comment #14 from Philipp Reichmuth <philipp.reichm...@gmail.com> --- (In reply to linadmin from comment #13) > (In reply to Philipp Reichmuth from comment #12) > > I think bashing developers is counterproductive. I think it's more probable > > that they didn't have test cases that were generated by whatever process you > > use to put GPS tags in your files. Where do those tags come from? I notice > > that the lengths of several fields are off. > > I do know that bashing may be counterproductive, but my many years of > waiting without success proved that positive feedback does not help either. A bug tracker is not a good place for venting and deliberately bashing developers is destructive, no matter how unhappy we are. I think this was probably an upstream issue that was fixed upstream unnoticed while you were waiting. If you still have access to your old system, and you want to be sure whether the bug was fixed in Gwenview or exiv2, you can verify this: go back to the old version where you see the Gwenview behaviour in the original bug report, check the exiv2 version installed there, and read out the broken 266-byte GPSAreaInformation tag on the command line. (In reply to linadmin from comment #11) > However, I do not see why it should display the additional information that > the GPSAreaInformation is in such and such character coding. It does not > show that on City and City2 which also can be Unicode and which have already > worked as expected in older versions. I conclude that the Gwenview project > management it too lousy to believe: They _somehow_ worked at the bug > without looking how it has been done on other fields. (In reply to linadmin from comment #13) > There is the EXIF standards documentation and Gwenview must first of all > adhere to this paper. [...] As fas as I can see Gwenview uses exiv2 for handling metadata. On my system the metadata is displayed exactly as exiv2 also shows it. So you might be holding the developers accountable for something with which they have nothing to do. According to the exiv2 manpage, the character specification applies to the tags Exif.Photo.UserComment, Exif.GPSInfo.GPSProcessingMethod and Exif.GPSInfo.GPSAreaInformation. It does not mention that this applies to tags from the manufacturer MakerNote such as Exif.Panasonic.City and I wouldn't expect it to, as they are not part of the standard. Either way I think we are talking about an upstream issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
