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

(For completeness: this is the mail to which Gianfranco Costamagna responded. This mail contains no new information.) Weitergeleitete Nachricht Betreff: Re: Bug#809623: RFS: telegram-purple/1.2.3-1 Datum: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 21:40:27 +0100 Von: BenWiederhake.GitHub

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

Hello, They generate the orig tarball. The watchfile is to check for the newest version. These are unrelated things. no. they are completely related things. uscan downloads the tarball from the watch file, and if the uscan downloaded tarball doesn't fit your needs you have to call the repack

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

Hi again, >Oh, wow. This will take a bit time until I grasp everything well enough >to publish something with this :P > >Most prominently, I don't like the "everythingisoneline" approach of the >watchfile. I guess someone has already suggested changing it to the >"usual" YAML-based approach?

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

Hi, > >Seems like it, true, but sadly is necessary. The package is in version >control, and unless we provide pre-bundled origtars somewhere (which >won't happen), this has to build the origtar by invoking "make dist" in >the source tree. why you cant provide pre-bundled origtars? I know

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

Control: tags -1 - moreinfo Hello, thanks for taking a look at this package :D I'm not sure if anybody picked up the work for this bug, but lets do another review: - -please drop commented default stuff from rules file - -please merge changelog in one single entry (also "mentors" is not a

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

Hi, >These (and only these; see below) are already fixed in 1.2.4-2, which >was uploaded 8 days ago [1] dget -u http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/t/telegram-purple/telegram-purple_1.2.4-2.dsc this is the file I downloaded now and it looks better. Maybe when you have too many

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

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Control: tags -1 moreinfo Hi, I'm not sure if anybody picked up the work for this bug, but lets do another review: - -please drop commented default stuff from rules file - -please use autoreconf and b-d on dh-autoreconf if possible - -please

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

On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 3:31 AM, Ben Wiederhake wrote: > - flawfinder yields too many results to be practical (~ 2460 lines). This is > mostly due to libtgl being written in a style that uses static arrays for > everything, including parsing and output. I've been thinking of making the default

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

- flawfinder yields too many results to be practical (~ 2460 lines). This is mostly due to libtgl being written in a style that uses static arrays for everything, including parsing and output. I've been thinking of making the default for c-a-t-t to limit output of checks by default, probably to

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

On Wed, Jan 6, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Ben Wiederhake wrote: > How about an option that changes the following: > - Current: thousands of warning for French, because the French dict is > missing. > - Suggested: single warning, saying "French dictionary not found (expected > at /usr/share/some/where)" > >

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

* d/README.source - In upstream README.md you tell Debian Maintainers to use the genorigtar.sh. Looking at Policy §4.14, I think README.source should also instruct to do that. * Paul Wise already wondered if libtgl should be separately packaged. The related Debian Policy bit is §4.13 [3]

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

* Ben Wiederhake , 2016-01-02, 23:13: The Russian PO file reads: Plural-Forms: nplurals=4; plural=(n%10==1 && n%100!=11 ? 0 : n%10>=2 && n%10<=4 && (n%100<12 || n%100>14) ? 1 : n%10==0 || (n%10>=5 && n%10<=9) || (n%100>=11 && n%100<=14)? 2 : 3); [...] Even though I

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

On 02-01-2016 19:08, Jakub Wilk wrote: > >> and how Russion plurals work(?!). > > The Russian PO file reads: > > Plural-Forms: nplurals=4; plural=(n%10==1 && n%100!=11 ? 0 : n%10>=2 > && n%10<=4 && (n%100<12 || n%100>14) ? 1 : n%10==0 || (n%10>=5 && > n%10<=9) || (n%100>=11 && n%100<=14)? 2 : 3);

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

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

On Sat, 02 Jan 2016 01:49:10 +0100 Ben Wiederhake wrote: > I am looking for a sponsor for my package "telegram-purple" I am not a DD or DM, so I can't offer sponsoring, but here are some things for you to look at. I'm hoping to help you improve the package and to

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

Telegram-purple is a generic purple-plugin, [...] 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

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

Hello, >> * 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

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

Hi, I happen to be i18nspector upstream. * BenWiederhake.GitHub , 2016-01-02, 20:31: - i18nspector and Transifex (the service we use for our translation) heavily disagree about how a po-file should look like, Care to elaborate on how they "heavily disagree"? and

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

Hi, I happen to be i18nspector upstream. Wow! What a quick response, thank you :) - i18nspector and Transifex (the service we use for our translation) heavily disagree about how a po-file should look like, Care to elaborate on how they "heavily disagree"? I "only" refer to the

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

2016-01-02 20:40 GMT+02:00 Juhani Numminen : > I am not a DD or DM, so I can't offer sponsoring, but here are some > things for you to look at. [...] I'll add to that: * Please install the appdata file. You can do this with dh_install(1) by creating a file called

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

On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Ben Wiederhake wrote: > * 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. > The package is (of course) lintian clean and passes several other tests.

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

Package: sponsorship-requests Severity: normal Dear mentors, I am looking for a sponsor for my package "telegram-purple" * Package name: telegram-purple Version : 1.2.3-1 Upstream Author : Matthias Jentsch * URL :