Bug#851756: telegram-desktop/1.0.12-1
New version has been released yesterday. I built the package [1] and
fixed some your comments as you wrote.
Sorry for the delay. I had some troubles with hardware of my computer,
but I hope now they have been solved.
11.02.2017 15:41, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
I do not assume the sponsoree is subscribed to either the bug or
debian-mentors, so I suggest you always CC him.
No problem, I obtained that message using Web-Browser.
02.02.2017 20:33, Boyuan Yang wrote:
* Please consider explicitly enable (full) hardening flags in d/rules and test
if the build can pass.
Hmm... It seems to be working. But lintian sill warnings about
hardening-no-fortify-functions.
* Is the hard Depends: to fcitx-frontend-qt5 necessary? Your instruction would
make everyone who installs telegram-desktop to install fcitx, which is an
Input Method Framework. I recommend you downgrade it to Suggests.
* Build-depends fcitx-frontend-qt5 seems very wrong. Could you please explain
why you add this one?
You are perfectly right. I removed fcitx-frontend-qt5 from build
dependencies. I also removed libva-dev and libvdpau-dev because I
deleted -l flag which are related to them.
11.02.2017 15:41, Mattia Rizzolo wrote:
dpkg-shlibdeps reports a lot of libraries that are linked but the binary
doesn't use any symbol: can you try to build with -Wl,--as-needed ?
Thank you for the helpful option. But I did not use it because I
manually got rid of any spare libraries from linker options. And now
dpkg-shilibdeps does not show any warnings.
In d/copyright, the Apache-2.0 license text should point to the thing in
/usr/share/common-license; it's not enough to point to an external
website, per Debian Policy everything should be available locally.
Fixed
Well, it's bullshit if you ask me; I wouldn't be particularly happy to
put my work in the public domain exactly because I don't want the
"Telegram team needs to use full Telegram Desktop source code with some
different license" as they put it. But yep, it's right.
Okay, I do not get it. I believe it would be better if the package was
not a frant. I mean, let the patches have the same license like the
upstream code. Like any other package in Debian archive.
You patched Telegram/gyp/Telegram.gyp but are you sure you don't have to
also patch Telegram/gyp/telegram_linux.gypi ? At the very least I
noticed a
-L/build/foobar/out/Release/../../../Libraries/libexif-0.6.20/libexif/.libs
in the final linking that I didn't expect to see, and there is no
libexif-dev in Build-Depends.
Don't worry, this directory (out/Release/../../../Libraries) usually
does not exist, so I think it not an issue. I guess it does not matter
because that option is after
-L/usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/qt5/lib
-L/usr/local/lib
and other which start with -L and relate to system folders.
[1]
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/telegram-desktop/telegram-desktop_1.0.12-1.dsc
Reply to: