After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 152676 - nautilus 2.6.3 does not support libexif 0.6.*
nautilus 2.6.3 does not support libexif 0.6.*
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 143743
Product: nautilus
Classification: Core
Component: Extension Library
2.6.x
Other Linux
: Low enhancement
: ---
Assigned To: Nautilus Maintainers
Nautilus Maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2004-09-14 23:20 UTC by Michael K. Johnson
Modified: 2004-12-22 21:47 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.5/2.6


Attachments
Patch that moves from libexif 0.5 to 0.6 compatibility (749 bytes, patch)
2004-09-14 23:21 UTC, Michael K. Johnson
none Details | Review

Description Michael K. Johnson 2004-09-14 23:20:54 UTC
It's not clear that you want it to work; since it's an incompatible
interface, you might only want newer versions of nautilus to work with
the new libexif.  However, I wanted to provide the trivial patch,
which I will attach.

The latest version of libexif changes to requiring a buffer be passed
into it instead of providing a static buffer, presumably to allow
threaded programs to use libexif without a mutex.  I'm not sure how
you would want to handle supporting both interfaces, buf if you are
interested in moving to the latest exif unconditionally, this patch
should give identical functionality.  (The buffer in old exif was
1024 characters; this patch just reproduces that exact behavior.)
Comment 1 Michael K. Johnson 2004-09-14 23:21:57 UTC
Created attachment 31566 [details] [review]
Patch that moves from libexif 0.5 to 0.6 compatibility

This patch is not compatible with libexif 0.5.
Comment 2 Sebastien Bacher 2004-09-19 10:51:35 UTC
Thanks for the bug report. This particular bug has already been reported into
our bug tracking system, but please feel free to report any further bugs you find.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 143743 ***