Bug#809623: RFS: telegram-purple/1.2.5
On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 08:51:11PM +0200, Ben Wiederhake wrote: > > Is anything happening here? > > Months passed since last email. > > In short: no, nothing to see here. > > If anyone is willing to work on libtgl's (the vysheng fork) missing API for > channels (which is the main thing holding up 1.3.0), go for it and implement > it. Then implement 1.3.0. If you do that, I'm more than willing to help > with the Debianization and maintain it for quite a while :P In this case, I wonder if this RFS should be closed. After all, there is nothing to sponsor here :) (Also, opening a new one once things are ready would help starting with a clean history, instead of having a potential sponsor scared by the quite many messagges already sent here). > Sorry. For now, you *could* clone and build from the github "dev-1.3.0" > branch, if you keep in mind that support for super-groups and channels is > incomplete (some messages may be silently dropped; some may be duplicated). > Or just clone and build from master, which is stable (but doesn't support > super-groups or channels at all). I wonder if putting in Debian a package with a so fast moving target is a good choice. What would happen when such package is in stable and telegram adds things/changes API? Do they commit in keeping things working for 5+ years (stable+oldstable+lts or any ubuntu lts release)? -- regards, Mattia Rizzolo GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`. more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' : Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'` Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#809623: RFS: telegram-purple/1.2.5
It *is* backward-compatible, but now a freshly-introduced turns-out-to-be-big feature is missing. Here I was referencing the "new" channels and super-groups, which still aren't implemented in telegram-purple, because Matthias hasn't had enough time for that yet (and I don't have any time at all). This is made worse by the fact that Telegram released or intends to release a new feature: editable chat messages. This will cause even more problems, since libpurple sinply doesn't have any API for that. Is anything happening here? Months passed since last email. In short: no, nothing to see here. If anyone is willing to work on libtgl's (the vysheng fork) missing API for channels (which is the main thing holding up 1.3.0), go for it and implement it. Then implement 1.3.0. If you do that, I'm more than willing to help with the Debianization and maintain it for quite a while :P Sorry. For now, you *could* clone and build from the github "dev-1.3.0" branch, if you keep in mind that support for super-groups and channels is incomplete (some messages may be silently dropped; some may be duplicated). Or just clone and build from master, which is stable (but doesn't support super-groups or channels at all). Regards, Ben
Bug#809623: RFS: telegram-purple/1.2.5
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 08:18:28PM +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote: > Hi, > > >It *is* backward-compatible, but now a freshly-introduced > >turns-out-to-be-big feature is missing. > > > let me know if you can do your upstream features in time, and I'll try to > quickly make the package > uploaded on unstable then :) Is anything happening here? Months passed since last email. -- regards, Mattia Rizzolo GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`. more about me: https://mapreri.org : :' : Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'` Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `- signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#809623: RFS: telegram-purple/1.2.5
Hi, >It *is* backward-compatible, but now a freshly-introduced >turns-out-to-be-big feature is missing. let me know if you can do your upstream features in time, and I'll try to quickly make the package uploaded on unstable then :) cheers, G.
Bug#809623: RFS: telegram-purple/1.2.5
Hey there, Well, that didn't work. Also, see below. As it turns out, pushing 1.2.5 into Debian right now would be a bad idea. again, if the problem is on Windows, I don't really care. We're not entirely sure about that; and 1.3.0 isn't ready yet. Due to Telegram cranking out unexpected features that break everything, we won't push 1.2.5 into Debian anyway, so that's why I don't bother with another RFS yet. as you wish, just be aware that we can break the freeze if needed, just speed up the fixes :) Wow, thanks! But I'll decline for this time. Version 1.2.5 doesn't support channels/supergroups, and letting all telegram-enthusiasts run against the wall called "Yeah we promise it'll be in the next release for sure I swear" is a bad idea. So it's even more waiting. (with telegram changing API/ABI it becomes difficult to make it suitable for stable...) It *is* backward-compatible, but now a freshly-introduced turns-out-to-be-big feature is missing. Regards Ben
Bug#809623: RFS: telegram-purple/1.2.5
Hi, > sorry for the long wait, real life happened. Also, note the version bump > in the subject from 1.2.3 to 1.2.5. no problem :) > We now bundle the origtar, and listen for it in d/watch wonderful! > I would like to see this work helping all Debian-derivatives. > A month ago, before I went inactive for a month, (long before Ubuntu's > DebianImportFreeze), I hoped that telegram-purple would make it into > Debian unstable and therefore into Ubuntu 2016-04. there still is hope. I'm an Ubuntu Developer, I can forcesync it also after the DebianImportFreeze (for leaf packages, no reverse-dependencies, release team should approve it) > Well, that didn't work. Also, see below. As it turns out, pushing 1.2.5 > into Debian right now would be a bad idea. again, if the problem is on Windows, I don't really care. > Thanks to the published origtar, this should become a bit easier in the > future. indeed! > Due to Telegram cranking out unexpected features that break everything, > we won't push 1.2.5 into Debian anyway, so that's why I don't bother > with another RFS yet. as you wish, just be aware that we can break the freeze if needed, just speed up the fixes :) (with telegram changing API/ABI it becomes difficult to make it suitable for stable...) cheers! Gianfranco signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Bug#809623: RFS: telegram-purple/1.2.5
Hello, sorry for the long wait, real life happened. Also, note the version bump in the subject from 1.2.3 to 1.2.5. 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 some project that does exactly the same. We now bundle the origtar, and listen for it in d/watch Now this is getting absurd: the whole point of dh get-orig-source is to >support people for who "git pull" is too complicated. But suddenly I can assume that git is installed, although git is not pulled by build-essential? Resolved. Long explanation: Back then, I (wanted to) implement dh get-orig-source by: - git clone-ing the repository - git checkout the required version - recreate origtar from that ... which is error-prone and unnecessarily complex. Starting with 1.2.5, the orig-tar is part of the release, so we can just use uupdate. Now I come with a question. You want to maintain the package only in Debian? or in all linux distro around the globe? I would like to see this work helping all Debian-derivatives. A month ago, before I went inactive for a month, (long before Ubuntu's DebianImportFreeze), I hoped that telegram-purple would make it into Debian unstable and therefore into Ubuntu 2016-04. Well, that didn't work. Also, see below. As it turns out, pushing 1.2.5 into Debian right now would be a bad idea. you are doing the repack work as Debian work, this means that other linux derivatives won't ever gain from the work, and they will need to do it again. Thanks to the published origtar, this should become a bit easier in the future. Pushing the tarball (complete and reduced) upstream, will save a lot of work for everybody and simplify a lot the Debian packaging (just a simple watch file, with no repack at all). Signed :) Due to Telegram cranking out unexpected features that break everything, we won't push 1.2.5 into Debian anyway, so that's why I don't bother with another RFS yet. Regards, Ben
