On Wednesday, 27. June 2007, Marcus Better wrote:
> Package: digikam
> Version: 2:0.9.2~beta3-1
> Severity: grave
>
> Digikam doesn't start anymore after upgrading to this version:
can you try 0.9.2-2, that was uploaded yesterday to sid?
Achim
--
To me vi is Zen. To use vi is to practice zen
> On June 18, 2007 05:39:48 Paul Romanchenko wrote:
[...]
> > Versions of packages gwenview recommends:
> > ii kdegraphics-kfile-plugins 4:3.5.7-2 KDE metainfo plugins for
> > graphic f
> > ii kipi-plugins 0.1.3-4image manipulation/handling
> > plugin
kipi-plugins 0
[not cc'ed to debian-release and exiv2]
On Thursday, 21. December 2006 16:46, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
[...]
> From what I can see, this is fine. bugs.d.o doesn't report anything
> unusual, but I would love to know if #393505 and #396249 are fixed in
> 2:0.8.2-2.
FWIW: a quick try of an aliot
> I shall try and upload with a dependancy on autotools tonight.
Mhmm, we still patch Makefile.am's. So adding updated 098_buildprep.diff
will fix it as well (and is idempotent, i.e., the diff of a second
build run is not cluttered with lots of e.g. Makefile.in changes.)
AFAIU kde.mk has now on
Hi Falk,
thx for the report. I've asked upstream for a fix.
Achim
--
To me vi is Zen. To use vi is to practice zen. Every command is
a koan. Profound to the user, unintelligible to the uninitiated.
You discover truth everytime you use it.
-- [EMAIL PR
tags 366933 +pending
stop
I've commited a fix upstream and to alioth. Pbuilds fine.
--- libkipi/libkipi/Makefile.am (revision 540612)
+++ libkipi/libkipi/Makefile.am (revision 540613)
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
METASOURCES = AUTO
-INCLUDES= $(LIBKIPI_CFLAGS) $(all_includes)
+INCLUDES = -I.. -I$(srcdir)/..
On Friday 12 May 2006 09:58, Bastian Blank wrote:
> Package: libkipi
> Version: 0.1.3-1
> Severity: serious
>
> There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
Hi Bastian,
I had alreaday a look at the m68k failure yesterday, which fails for the same
reason :(
>
> > Automatic build o
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 11:48, Achim Bohnet wrote:
> On Wednesday 01 February 2006 10:25, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > Package: digikam
> > Version: 0.8.1-1
> > Severity: serious
> >
> > There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
>
> Hi
On Wednesday 01 February 2006 10:25, Bastian Blank wrote:
> Package: digikam
> Version: 0.8.1-1
> Severity: serious
>
> There was an error while trying to autobuild your package:
Hi Bastian,
this is not a digikam problem. libXt-dev contains no longer
a libXt.la file. So every -dev pkgs that
reassign 332827 digikam digikamimageplugins
tags 332827 +pending
thanks
Hi Kurt,
because libdigikam is only shared between
digikam and digikamimageplugins (see #324592). I added
a build-deps libsqlite3-dev to digikamimageplugins instead
of a depends to digikam. This way the dependency kicks
in
On Monday 22 August 2005 23:38, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
[Sorry for my (too) late response. Just returned from holidays.]
> Package: digikam
> Version: 0.7.4-1
> Severity: serious
>
> Hi,
>
> Your package has a shared library in it: /usr/lib/libdigikam.so
Hi Kurt,
technically it's a shared library,
package digikam
severity 305566 normal
stop
I've copied your gif-samples to a new digikam folder
and digikam 0.7.2-2 displayed all 10 thumbnails after
some seconds without problem. Copied 200 other pkgs
into the folder still no problems. So I can't reproduce
here. Considering that almost all us
On Wednesday 20 April 2005 23:32, Markus Schatzl wrote:
> Hi Achim,
>
> > What is huge? How many pictures? Total size of pictures?
>
> Not that much, actually. About 10 pictures at ~1MB suffice to trigger
> the issue.
Hmm, only 10 thumbnails only? All my albums have more (all < 150).
No probl
Hi Markus,
looks like it's a known Problem:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=11492713
...
One of the problems with current digikam is that the thumbnail pixmaps are
kept in memory for all the items in the current view. usually users have
<300 files per folder, so thats
Hi Markus,
What is huge? How many pictures? Total size of pictures?
If you used a digikam version before that did not show the problem,
which version?
Thx,
Achim
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Friday 25 March 2005 21:46, Jean-Michel Kelbert wrote:
> Le 24/03/05 Ã 16:31 Achim Bohnet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Ãcrivait :
>
> Sorry for the delay to answer.
> I have hundred mails to read. Could you please tell me what I've to do
> for showimg ?
Hi Jean-Michel,
short sto
On Thursday 24 March 2005 15:41, Mark Purcell wrote:
[...]
> I intend to upload libkexif1 and rebuilt kipi-plugins and digkameplugins
> to unstable. They will all sit in unstable until showimg is uploaded to
> unstable at which time they can all migrate to testing together.
>
> I don't want to wai
On Tuesday 22 March 2005 22:53, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 08:46:17PM +, Mark Purcell wrote:
> > Now that libikexif1 has hit experimental shall I upload the release
> > version to unstable?
>
> > Both libkexif1 & libkexif0 can co-exist in unstable together and
> > libkexif
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 23:13, Benoît Deville wrote:
> Package: digikam
> Version: 0.7-3
this should be 0.7.2-1 *duck*
> Severity: grave
> Justification: renders package unusable
>
>
> Says it depends on libkexif1 which seems not to be installable.
Yes. Sorry! It was a sad stupid accident t
Update:
I've ask the ftp master for removal of digikamplugins. See #295363.
Achim
--
To me vi is Zen. To use vi is to practice zen. Every command is
a koan. Profound to the user, unintelligible to the uninitiated.
You discover truth everytime you use it.
On Tuesday 18 January 2005 12:55, Steve Langasek wrote:
> If this package is obsoleted by digikam 0.7, what reason is there to wait
> before asking for its removal? To me, "obsoleted" means "doesn't work".
Hi Steve,
the plugins 'work' but no package use the plugins anymore.
As I tried to explai
package digikamplugins
tags 290111 + pending
stop
thx
Hi Daniel,
thx for the report. That's an incomptibility with digikam 0.7
(and 0.7 obsoletes digikamplugins).
when KDE 3.3 went into sarge and in it's tail digikam 0.7.
Therefore digikam 0.6.*, the only user of digikamplugins, 'vanished'.
We
22 matches
Mail list logo
