fixed a case where on first run, the file will not exist and the cat inside printf in line 40 will show give an error instead of doing something useful

Hi Luke, I don't see any simillar issue besides this one (might be related): https://github.com/LukeSmithxyz/voidrice/issues/831

I cannot move or copy any image via Sxiv script in key-handler I have a fresh (almost fresh) installation of Arch + Larbs, and I get an error that "Downloads (or basically any directory from bm-dirs) is not a directory, cancelled."

I have my user-dirs.dirs and bm-dirs filled:

Dmenu is displaying everything properly, and I can move the files using the command line (with XDG variables) as well, I don't know what's causing this error

https://github.com/LukeSmithxyz/voidrice/blob/master/LICENSE here, stop taking amphetamine and get some patience by meditating or something, or just websearch how to find the loicence of a project on github. also there exists gpl, lgpl and agpl. gpl has no version newer than 3.0 officially, so what you're even asking about is just retarded in multiple ways.

Okay.

First, I know that the license to this repository. It is right there on the side of the web view, next to the scales. Thank you for the link to that, as well.

Secondly, I am aware of the various GNU licenses -- GPL, Lesser GPL, Affero GPL. This repository is using version 3 of the GNU General Public License, as shown by the LICENSE file.

To get to the actual point of what I asked: yes, "GPL version X only" or "GPL version X or later" is an actual issue. For example, The Linux project notably uses GPL version 2 only. Read that LICENSE you just linked and you'll see it for yourself:

14. Revised Versions of this License.

The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General Public License "or any later version" applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation. ...

How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs

...

...attach the following notices to the program.

...

<one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.> Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>

This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License along with this program. If not, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/.

I don't care which it is, I'd just like to know which it is. One (somewhat tedious) way to solve this would be to add that header to script and config files, or add a SPDX identifier of either 'GPL-3.0-only' or 'GPL-3.0-or-later'. Another would be to just state which it is in the README. Another way, and the easiest probably, would just be a line from Luke in this issue clarifying it.

https://github.com/LukeSmithxyz/voidrice/blob/master/LICENSE here, stop taking amphetamine and get some patience by meditating or something, or just websearch how to find the loicence of a project on github. also there exists gpl, lgpl and agpl. gpl has no version newer than 3.0 officially, so what you're even asking about is just retarded in multiple ways.

As I'm sure you're aware, people licensing their software under the terms of the GNU General Public License can choose to license it solely under the terms of version 3 of the license, OR either version 3 of the license, or any later version.

Which is it for this repository?

Hi Luke, just thought I would let you know, the sb-battery script won't work in i3blocks because a newline is not at the end of the printf command. All other scripts in this directory have a newline at the end. Adding printf "\n" on line 36 fixes the issue.

xrandr is needed for the "choose display* script but does not get installed by default.

xrandr is needed for the "choose display* script but does not get installed by default.

made it able to choose a preferred C compiler; and use multiple cores/threads.

Deprecate backticks, include eval to clarify execution, and quote to prevent word splitting.

Replace explicit empty string check condition with inbuilt POSIX compliant empty string check flag, in adherence with the rest of the script.

on aliasrc there is a for loop that adds sudo before some commands, this is really nice. The other day while having an idea of some sort I used the variable "$x" and forgot It stores the last variable on the loop. Just add "unset x" after the loop to 'unset x'.

on aliasrc there is a for loop that adds sudo before some commands, this is really nice. The other day while having an idea of some sort I used the variable "$x" and forgot It stores the last variable on the loop. Just add "unset x" after the loop to 'unset x'.

I see. Thank you for letting me know.

TLDR: Yes. Ctrl+F "Real Programmers" in https://tldp.org/LDP/Bash-Beginners-Guide/html/sect_07_01.html Ctrl+F "test expression" in https://man.archlinux.org/man/dash.1 https://man.archlinux.org/man/test.1.en

@narukeh

since you are improving it, do the superlative:

test -z "$mp" && exit 1

Updated it.

Is this generally considered better than [ ] notation?

Replace explicit empty string check condition with inbuilt POSIX compliant empty string check flag, in adherence with the rest of the script.

Sure. Will update it. Is this form considered better than the [ ] test notation?

Replace explicit empty string check condition with inbuilt POSIX compliant empty string check flag, in adherence with the rest of the script.

When using the booksplit script, the script does split and tag the files properly with ffmpeg and opustags installed, as well as the tag script. However, when certain files download initially as a .m4a file, for example, and are converted to .opus by the script, they become unplayable with the error message "Failed to recognize file format." Is there a program that I don't have installed that would alleviate this? I'm using the same "yt" and "yta" aliases as in the aliasrc so it's not an issue with the actual downloaded file itself, I don't believe.

since you are improving it, do the superlative:

test -z "$mp" && exit 1