Clarification of SRU procedure

[Toby Smithe]

Hi,

I am the maintainer of "fluid-soundfont" in Debian, and receive bug
reports not only from there but also from Launchpad. Bug 355864[1] was
reported by a user running a release prior to Jaunty, and thus has not
received the fix that I released into Debian sid in late December.

[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/fluid-soundfont/+bug/355864
    ("config file doesn't work")

I believe that this bug, due to its functionally inhibiting property
and its minor correction, to be worthy of SRU. However, I am not sure
of the procedure, having not worked directly in Ubuntu universe for a
long time: as the fix was released in a new Debian revision, can I
just request a sync from Jaunty and provide a rationale? Or must I
transplant only the change to the config file referenced, ignoring any
other minor fixes that the "-2" revision may provide, creating a
"-1ubuntu1" revision? Bear in mind that the "-2" revision is available
in Debian testing, and is therefore less likely to be visibly buggy
than any new and untested "-1ubuntu1" revision; I am aware, however,
that the "-proposed" repositories are provided for this, but that
seems somewhat redundant here.

I read wiki.u.c/StableReleaseUpdates, but it seems primarily aimed at
Ubuntu developers, and doesn't sufficiently cover the minimal sync
case I describe here. Procedure 2.3 ("A minimal patch applicable to
the stable version of the package") is particularly ambiguous: can
this "minimal patch" be just the debdiff between the two revisions?

Please remember to copy me in on all replies: I am not subscribed to this list.

Thanks for your help,

-- 
Toby Smithe :: http://fulltinreality.com