-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103478/#review57846
-----------------------------------------------------------

Ship it!


Even if it does not crash, the --waitforwm key is completely broken w/o this 
patch since the application will wait for some random property forever.

-> No idea what --waitforwm is good for, but either this patch should go in or 
the option removed.
For testing the application has likely to be run from ~/.kde/env since the 
standard does not mandate to withdraw it (and kwin doesn't), so it's not a 
secure check whether a NETWM compliant WM is *still* present at all.

openbox withdraws it, so you could
openbox --replace & sleep 5; pkill openbox; sleep 5; klipper --waitforwm & 
sleep 30; kwin &

or alternatively just
kquitapp kwin; sleep 1; xprop -remove -root _NET_SUPPORTED; sleep 1; klipper 
--waitforwm & sleep 30; kwin &

Assuming it would be relevant, you got a shipIt! from at least here - sorry for 
not reviewing before.

- Thomas Lübking


On May 12, 2014, 10:25 p.m., Christoph Feck wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103478/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 12, 2014, 10:25 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for kdelibs.
> 
> 
> Bugs: 287364
>     http://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=287364
> 
> 
> Repository: kdelibs
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> KApplication references atom_NetSupported in parseCommandLine() before it is
> initialized. This patch fixes it by reordering the code.
> 
> I verified it no longer crashes when invoking with "--waitforwm", but I have 
> no idea how to test if it actually works.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   kdeui/kernel/kapplication.cpp cc20f05 
> 
> Diff: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/103478/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Christoph Feck
> 
>

Reply via email to