[KPhotoAlbum] can not deal with images not on disk
zwokkqxpozgc+xcubgbnyohzznvyyvfg at gmail.com
Sat Jul 21 18:37:29 CEST 2007
On Friday 20 July 2007 01:51:49 pm Martin Jost wrote:
> Jean-Michel FAYARD schrieb:
> > I also don't think that it's right to do feature b) == "Block Images
> > from Display in KPA" on an image by image basis. Instead, we could
> > have a separate dialog like in Amarok with a hierarchy of your folders
> > where you would say which directories you want to scan and which you
> > want to block (typically ~/hidden/Playboy and ~/html ). (This new
> > dialog would also give an ihm to the kimdaba -c
> > another_directory/index.xml feature
> I too would like this feature.
> A typical use-case for me would be down-scaled copies of my images.
> I usually down-scale images to get a collection of a CD. Unfortunately
> KPA can only use output directories from the batch processes, below the
> KPA base dir. (See my crash report 13/15.7.) So KPA imports the
> downscaled images into the DB. Now I have those photos in the DB twice
> with the same filename, but different pathnames and resolutions.
> For that situation it would be nice to have a way to tell KPA "ignore
> all images below directory x".
It would be nice to add wildcards to the exclusions if possible. Some crappy
image managers (such as xv and others) keep thumbnails in a hidden folder
next to all the other pictures, so you end up with .xvpics/ thumbnail
directories all over the place. I don't want to have to exclude each of
them individually (especially since more will appear over time). Wildcards
or regex exclusions would help tremendously.
While I am on the subject of regular expressions--if this feature were
introduced, perhaps it would be possible to also allow for wildcards or
regular expressions in the KPA search utility? Such as searching for tags
that match "*fam*" or labels matching "*200?*"
More information about the KPhotoAlbum