liquidshell in kdereview

[Adriaan de Groot]

On Saturday, 13 April 2019 14:08:18 CEST Martin Koller wrote:
> > # License issues
> > 
> > None, actually. Well done. Consistent use of GPLv3+ everywhere. You might
> > want to add SPDX identifiers, but that would be the icing on the cake.
> 
> Where, which and how would I need to add SPDX identifiers ?

You don't *need* to. Like I said, icing on the cake, which is like .. vanilla 
sauce on the apfelstruedel. Makes it complete and wonderful, but it's 
acceptable without it.

SPDX identifiers are machine-readable, standardised, tags in source files that 
help tooling that works with licensing (meta) data. See spdx.org; something 
like (off the top of my head, not necessarily the right identifier or format, 
etc.)

// SPDX-Identifier: GPLv2+

at the top of C++ source files does the trick.

> Where is this documented in KDE guidelines ?
> Here
> https://community.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy
> I don't find anything.

It's not.

> > # Source issues
> > 
> > Doesn't report nicely at end of CMake (use FeatureSummary).
> 
> included now

Thanks.

> > # Compatibility issues
> > 
> > Fails to document that NetworkManager and BlueZ are required.
> 
> Not sure I understand.

Would have been nice to have that in the README, is what I mean.

> > Uses bash for things that are POSIX shell scripts.
> 
> What do you mean ?

You have a shell script (start_liquidshell). It uses no bash features at all. 
A POSIX system (ok, liquidshell is for Linux only, so this can be argued) has 
a /bin/sh for shell scripts.

> I did this since I remember having read that /bin/sh is not the correct way.

Fine by me.

[ade]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20190414/30d98fc2/attachment.sig>