> The Trisquel 8 repos have a version of Jami so old it's still got the > Ring branding. It's really not helpful to have this kind of thing in > the repos. Is it possible to backport a newer version? If not, it > probably makes sense to just remove it from the repos
Ubuntu 16.04 (and thus Trisquel 8) is based on a 2016 snapshot, so with the exception of Firefox/Abrowser and packages which have been specifically backported, everything in Trisquel's repositories is the same age as the this version of Ring/Jami. If we were to start removing or backporting packages just because they are old, it would have to be basically the entire distro. I think it is only worth doing this for packages whose version in the repos has a specific problem. Are you worried that the package being under its old name will be confusing for users looking for Jami? If so, that might be a good enough reason to backport it. It looks like the name change is relatively recent. Ubuntu 18.04 (and thus Trisquel 9) still calls the package "ring". It wasn't until Ubuntu 19.04 that "ring" became a transitional package that points to "jami", so without any backporting it will not be until Trisquel 10 that "jami" is in the repos. Since Ring is in Ubuntu's Universe repository, it does not receive security updates from Canonical, so if there are known security issues then that would also be a reason to backport. (We do this with Tor, for example). Are you aware of any issues like this?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
