backporting strategy (was: teTeX 3?)

[Shot - Piotr Szotkowski]

Hello.

Travis Watkins:

> The backports team (the ones behind the original backports) determine
> how well a package works on the older distro and what changes would
> have to be made to get it running (hopefully none). So picking
> packages is still done manually.

Does this apply to the packages' versions, or simply the package names?

If (striclty hypothetically speaking, of course) I'd like to track
the newest version of the wesnoth package, would I have to ask for
backporting each time the current devel repository gets a new upload?

On a related note: the policy is that the backports must origin
from the devel repository, right? So, for the example package above
(hoary: 0.8.11-1, hoary-backports: 0.9.3-1~hoary1, breezy: 0.9.7-1,
Debian sid: 0.99+1.0rc1-1) if I wanted to have 0.99, I'd have to ask
the MotU team to first get it into the devel repository, and only after
this I could ask for backporting to stable-backports?

// Sorry for the detailed example, I'd just like
// to have the policy/procedures clear in my head.

Cheers,
-- Shot (who actually hasn't played Battle for Wesnoth in, like, ages...)
-- 
          I have discovered a truly remarkable solution to Fermat's
          Last Theorem which this signature is too small to contain.
====================== http://shot.pl/hovercraft/ === http://shot.pl/1/125/ ===
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20050928/7e186876/attachment-0001.pgp