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

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

On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 12:29 AM, Ben Wiederhake wrote:

> 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.

Other libpurple backends are named pidgin-* (like pidgin-openfetion,
pidgin-skype and pidgin-librvp) and I don't see any libpurple backends
with other names. Perhaps these packages should be renamed though.

> 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)?

As a comment in debian/control or README.Debian. I wouldn't bother
filing a wontfix bug yourself.

> 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'd be interested to know if those are false positives in the tools it
runs or caused by it.

I wonder if libtgl should be packaged separately so that all the
Telegram clients could use it?

BTW, Telegram has a pretty terrible reputation amongst cryptographers,
personally I would switch to OTR or Signal/TextSecure if you can.



Reply to: