[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#809623: RFS: telegram-purple/1.2.3-1

>>   * Package name    : telegram-purple

This should probably be named pidgin-telegram in line with the other
pidgin/libpurple plugins we have in the archive already.

Oh, I forgot to include the rationale for sticking with the name.

Telegram-purple is a generic purple-plugin, and also works well with Adium, Finch, and well enough with certain libppurple-using frontends such as telepathy-haze and Spectrum.
So including "pidgin" into the name would be highly misleading.

Where should I write this down? d/control maybe? Or as a "wontfix"-bug against the package (as soon as it exists in the BTS)?

The package is (of course) lintian clean and passes several other tests.
In case you want to check more things, you can run
check-all-the-things from Debian experimental.

Oh! I never checked experimental, that's why I didn't find it XD

It reports a lot of things, mostly false positives or related to the underlying libtgl. However, at least codespell (the very first to be run, and I was sure I already did that) yields a few things.

I'm going to work through the 8K likes it spits out over the next days.

Ben Wiederhake

Reply to: