Version: 1.2 (using KDE 4.4.2) OS: Linux Installed from: Ubuntu Packages Hi, I have my digikam database from an older version which is still in the digikam3.db format. When I first start DigiKam in Kubuntu 10.04 I am asked the normal question if I want to upgrade my database. I answer yes, and everything proceeds as expected. The Album appears correctly, but none of the tags held in the digikam3.db database are propagated to the new database. Help -> Database Statistics -> Tags = 0 I have read that having the database file on an NFS share can cause problems. I have tried moving the digikam3.db file to a local disk, but I have not had any luck. I am relatively technical, and would be happy to try anything you suggest to get this problem sorted (I am not looking forward to re-tagging the full photo collection ;) ). I would attached the digikam3.db file to this bug report, but there does not seem to be an attachment mechanism. I can email it if this helps. Regards, Paul.
Created attachment 43541 [details] old database file that is not upgrading correctly
Found the attachment for bug reporting :)
That is the old database, isn't it? There are no tags left in it. So if it's the old one, that's not an upgrade problem, there's nothing to upgrade. (Btw, the Tags and ImageTags table is not touched at all by the upgrading process.)
Hi Marcel, thanks for the reply. I am a little confused (not an uncommon occurrence :) ). The digikam3.db file I attached to the bug report is the only file I have for the picture library. I agree its old (probably from Kubuntu Repos from about 8.10. I had tagged each picture with a persons name and location etc - for example "Luan" should exist in many photos. I have opened the digikam3.db file in kate and even though its a binary I can still read it a bit, but I cannot find a tag with "Luan" - so I agree there seems to be no tagging information. I would load the file into a sqlite client if I was a bit more sql aware. So my question now is that if the tags are not present in the database file, and also they were not attached to the image files themselves, where would the older version of digikam store them ? Many thanks, Paul. On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 10:56 PM, Marcel Wiesweg <marcel.wiesweg@gmx.de>wrote: > https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=237514 > > > > > > --- Comment #3 from Marcel Wiesweg <marcel wiesweg gmx de> 2010-05-13 > 22:56:23 --- > That is the old database, isn't it? > There are no tags left in it. > So if it's the old one, that's not an upgrade problem, there's nothing to > upgrade. > (Btw, the Tags and ImageTags table is not touched at all by the upgrading > process.) > > -- > Configure bugmail: https://bugs.kde.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > You are on the CC list for the bug. > You reported the bug. >
All digikam versions from about the last five to ten years will have saved tags to the database. Definitely versions from 2008. Maybe there is another db file which has actually been used by digikam? Remember older versions required the db to be in the same directory as the pictures, but with the database file over NFS not working, hacks were made up with symbolic links to the db file on local storage. If you tagged with a digikam version >= 0.10, the file will be named digikam4.db.
Hi Marcel, I have found my tags - very good news. I have inadvertently removed the digikam4.db file from the directory where the Album is. BTW, the digikam3.db file was a leftover from way back it seems. I see that now photos are not appearing yet, but this is due to the album directory existing on an NFS drive I guess. So I can see the tags in the DigiKam application - so please close the bug. Thanks for your help, Paul. On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Marcel Wiesweg <marcel.wiesweg@gmx.de>wrote: > https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=237514 > > > > > > --- Comment #5 from Marcel Wiesweg <marcel wiesweg gmx de> 2010-05-14 > 17:54:03 --- > All digikam versions from about the last five to ten years will have saved > tags > to the database. Definitely versions from 2008. > Maybe there is another db file which has actually been used by digikam? > Remember older versions required the db to be in the same directory as the > pictures, but with the database file over NFS not working, hacks were made > up > with symbolic links to the db file on local storage. > If you tagged with a digikam version >= 0.10, the file will be named > digikam4.db. > > -- > Configure bugmail: https://bugs.kde.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > You are on the CC list for the bug. > You reported the bug. >