Need someone to check my code

[Hefee]

Hey,

> Done. But for po/sk/kup.so this file doesn't have a license like
> others, instead, it only has copyright info. What can we do to it?
> Should I contact license holder to get permission from they?

I normally interpret this as it is released with the same license like the 
program itself, but just list the Name as another License holder in the 
Files: * 

But in principle you are right, we should contact upstream about this. Also 
the Catalan translation always have their own license is making the work of us 
harder than needed... The  upstream list would be kde-i18n-doc at kde.org. I'd be 
happy if you start the discussion there.

Please add to all GPL/LPGL stanzas in copyright, the line like in GPL-2:

 On Debian systems, the complete text of the Y can be found in "/usr/share/
common-licenses/X".

> Modify the link in my own repo. Once it's ready to release, I'll
> change fork relationship to it and make a pull-request.

Just create a merge request to the fork in extras than I can merge it. You 
don't need to fork again. And if I merged it I can give you access so you are 
able to modify the repo yourself directly. 

Maybe it already make sense, if you create a MR than I can directly add 
comments and suggestions within salsa and do not need to write everything via 
email.
 
> > > After it's ready to be released to unstable, I want to rename the
> > > package name to kde-config-backup like other packages with similar
> > > functions such as kde-config-tablet and kde-config-fcitx5.
> > 
> > From my point of view the rename does not make sense. The package is more
> > than the kcm. The package ships several binaries, kcm and a plasmoid. Or
> > do you mean you want to split the package?
> 
> I think splitting the package makes no sense. Even though it has three
> command-line tools, it's highly unlikely it'll be used by programs
> except kup itself and spitting them apart will make maintenance work
> much harder. So we can just leave it as-is and don't change package
> name.

Yes I think the same, that splitting the package does not make sense. Just 
wanted to understand your thoughts...

Okay I'll do another round of review and than I think we are ready for upload.
Properly mostly nitpicking stuff.

Have you checked the open bugreports, it is also a good state to process them?

Regards,

hefee
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-kde-talk/attachments/20250327/75734ef1/attachment.sig>