Telegram Desktop retirement notice from RPM fussion

I don't know how the situation is on RPM-based systems, but I've been using the same telegram binary on arch as well as debian stable, with no complaints. Having maintained deb/rpm packages in the past, I won't shame anyone for being annoyed towards those ecosystems.

Re: Telegram Desktop retirement notice from RPM fussion

#5

Post by Snetry » Sun, Jul 18, 2021, 8:20 PM UTC

comex wrote: post #3

This email is from March. Have there been any updates since then?

The original maintainer has dropped the package and someone else picked it back up.

Thats about it

Re: Telegram Desktop retirement notice from RPM fussion

#6

Post by orf » Sun, Jul 18, 2021, 10:34 PM UTC

Yeah why would anyone be annoyed at people redistributing their software with “low quality and useless” patches, which increases the support burden on the project?

https://github.com/telegramdesktop/tdesktop/issues/8769#issu...

Re: Telegram Desktop retirement notice from RPM fussion

#7

Post by Brian_K_White » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 12:59 AM UTC

orf wrote: post #6

Yeah why would anyone be annoyed at people redistributing their software with “low quality and useless” patches, which increases the support burden on the project? https://github.com/telegramdesktop/tdesktop/issues/8769#issu...

Ignore packagers requests for help, then bash them for packaging wrong.

You know, F those guys. I see no excuse for Telegram being so uncooperative. The points in this frankly embarassing little comment don't constitute an excuse to ignore every other perfectly valid attempts to interoperate with them.

Re: Telegram Desktop retirement notice from RPM fussion

#8

Post by ayanamist » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 1:45 AM UTC

> "We only support static builds, if you need shared -> fix it yourself"

I think this is thecause and effect why below

> recently they removed builds support against Qt Maintaining backward compatibility needs a lot of work, especially ".so dependency hell"

Re: Telegram Desktop retirement notice from RPM fussion

#9

Post by orf » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 10:23 AM UTC

Brian_K_White wrote: post #7

orf wrote: post #6

Yeah why would anyone be annoyed at people redistributing their software with “low quality and useless” patches, which increases the support burden on the project? https://github.com/telegramdesktop/tdesktop/issues/8769#issu...

Ignore packagers requests for help, then bash them for packaging wrong. You know, F those guys. I see no excuse for Telegram being so uncooperative. The points in this frankly embarassing little comment don't constitute an excuse to ignore every other perfectly valid attempts to interoperate with them.

I’m not sure if their position could be any clearer: they can’t stop you re-packaging it, but it’s totally unsupported. Only the official builds are supported.

Being granted that most noble of OSS titles, imbued by the ghost of Dennis Ritchie himself, the rank of packager in actuality means jack-all and doesn’t give your requests any more weight or mean that they need to answer them at all. They don’t want it packaged like that.

They publish and support static binaries. Anything else is a burden, and they shouldn’t adapt their project because someone actually wants to dynamically link it.