Bug 448862

Summary: Put database in alternate directory
Product: [Applications] kphotoalbum Reporter: jaimezx
Component: XML backendAssignee: KPhotoAlbum Bugs <kpabugs>
Status: CONFIRMED ---    
Severity: wishlist CC: johannes
Priority: NOR    
Version: unspecified   
Target Milestone: ---   
Platform: Ubuntu   
OS: Linux   
Latest Commit: Version Fixed In:

Description jaimezx 2022-01-21 02:43:34 UTC 
Hello! I am trying to use kphotoalbum, (v. 5.6.1 in Ubuntu/Gnome) but 98% of my image archive  is read-only for security purposes. It seems the application is hard-coded to drop the XML into the top-level folder rather than, say /home/jaimezx/.kphotoalbum. It seems like this could be an option to change in the Settings menu, but I will also concede the developers may have a reason for not doing it that way.

Thanks for your time!

STEPS TO REPRODUCE
1. 
2. 
3. 

OBSERVED RESULT


EXPECTED RESULT


SOFTWARE/OS VERSIONS
Windows: 
macOS: 
Linux/KDE Plasma: 
(available in About System)
KDE Plasma Version: 
KDE Frameworks Version: 
Qt Version: 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Comment 1 jaimezx 2022-01-21 02:45:26 UTC 
Hello! I am trying to use kphotoalbum, (v. 5.6.1 in Ubuntu/Gnome) but 98% of my image archive  is read-only for security purposes. It seems the application is hard-coded to drop the XML into the top-level folder rather than, say /home/jaimezx/.kphotoalbum. Unfortunately since the application cannot save to the image directory it just errors-out.
It seems to me the database location could be an option to change in the Settings menu, but I will also concede the developers may have a reason for not doing it that way.

Thanks for your time!
Comment 2 Johannes Zarl-Zierl 2022-01-22 00:01:59 UTC 
Hi!

This is currently a known limitation in KPhotoAlbum. There are plans to change this, though not of the highest priority.

In the meantime, you can work around the limitation by having a writable image database folder and using a symbolic link to the read-only image archive directory.

I will update this bug report once the limitation is addressed properly.

Cheers,
  Johannes