Bug#851756: RFS: telegram-desktop/1.0.5-1
Control: retitle -1 RFS: telegram-desktop/1.0.5-1
31.01.2017 12:07, Mattia Rizzolo пишет:
I really prefer them to be bit-by-bit identical. Please use
pristine-tar to accomplish so. Furthermore gbp had a bug recently
whereas it wouldn't produce identical tarballs without (#851645).
Thanks, I changed d/gbp.conf, and now they seems identical.
Ok: Question 2: Is there any difference between a "Release" build and a
"Debug" build? If the only difference is the a different -O coming from
the package's build system, then there is always the -O coming from
dpkg-buildflags.
gyp defines _DEBUG macro in Debug build. And then TG Desktop stores its
settings in independent directory, -debug flag is ignored (the program
always writes logs), and LTO optimization is disabled in compile-time.
NDEBUG macro is defined in Release build, but it is not used.
well, "inextricably", the only debian-specific thing is the
DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH variable, but really the gnu triplet is standardized,
and pretty much every building tool has a way to get to it. And the
QCoreApplication::addLibraryPath should be solved elsewhere: doing that
in that level is just hacky.
When I tried to print Qt library path inside special test program, it
looked fine. But when I printed it inside main function (at the very
beginning) of Telegram Desktop, it was empty. I think a global object
changes this path inside its constructor. I will explore this issue.
Question: why don't you also name the icons telegram-desktop, as you
name the binary and the WMClass?
Their binary creates the icon just named telegram. Also I believe it
really makes sense, because there is Telegram logo on this icon, not
only Telegram Desktop.
I think you're not using the boundled minizip, but still that should be
referenced in the d/copyright.
Also, why are you using a more restrictive license for debian/* instead
of also picking the OpenSSL exception? Theoritically this could lead to
patches that can't be upstreamed, or somthing stupid like this.
I examined upstream source and tried to extract all copyrights, so I
rewrote d/copyright.
According to their contributing policy [1], I put my patches into public
domain. Is it right?
New stable version was released yesterday. So I have fixed your remarks
and have built the new package [2]. At the same time, I had added the
manpage. I had written it in markdown (I like this markup language), and
had supplemented d/rules to build the manual in nroff format.
Furthermore, I registered new core application for obtaining api_id to
avoid potential API issues which are described on [3].
[1]
https://github.com/telegramdesktop/tdesktop/blob/master/.github/CONTRIBUTING.md#sign-your-work
[2]
https://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/telegram-desktop/telegram-desktop_1.0.5-1.dsc
[3]
https://core.telegram.org/api/obtaining_api_id#using-telegram-39s-open-source-code
Reply to: