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. -- bye, pabs https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
