https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=479268
--- Comment #4 from Thibault Lemaire <thibault.lema...@protonmail.com> --- (In reply to Maik Qualmann from comment #3) > Honestly, I don't see that we should change anything here. Our binary search > did not find a working exiftool because the version could not be queried due > to the perl language error message. Maybe it would help in this case if we > showed the version output, but in most cases it would just be blank. > > Maik Ok, showing the output might be a lot of work for an arguably rare case. But wouldn't it be feasible to distinguish between "binary not found" (i.e. could not find a file called "exiftool") and e.g. "binary not suitable" or "could not determine version" (i.e. there is a file called "exiftool", it might even have been manually selected by the user, but we couldn't parse a version) ? I was hopelessly looking for issues with permissions, SELinux, and symlinking, and did not even think to check the output of exiftool. It might not seem like that big a difference but "binary not found" is clearly not the right message here, and completely mislead me. At the very least I would ask to just change that tooltip into "binary not found or not working". Also, if the argument is about the amount of work to put into implementing this, then I can offer to do it myself. Although unfamiliar with digiKam's codebase, I'm a C++ developper. I'll let you people judge the maintenance costs though. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.
