Chaosmonk:
> I think it is only worth doing this for packages whose version in the repos
has a specific problem.
I understand that backporting adds a lot of work that I don't have the skills
to volunteer for (although I'm willing to learn with some mentorship). But I
think Jami is a strong candidates for backporting.
1) As you say, the name. Users looking to install Jami from the repos may not
realize they need to install a package called "ring".
2) ensuring best possible first impressions of a GNU package that is on the
FSF list of high priority projects. A number of improvements have been made
to the Jami UX since the ring version in the repos. Eg in that version, a
message sent to a user who is offline immediately fails. In the current
version, the message instead goes into a queue, to be delivered next time the
other user comes online at the same time as the sending user.
3) Similar reasons to Tor. Jami intends to deliver an end-to-end encrypted
communications app. Supplying long out-of-date versions may lead to avoidable
breaches of communications privacy for anyone who uses them.
Given these reasons, I think it would be best not to have Jami in the repos
at all, and direct users to the Jami site for downloads, than to include
obsolete versions.
