* For a bug task about upstream projects: a release tarball was announced and is publicly available
* For package maintainers, a fix was uploaded to an official Ubuntu repository
o This does not include -proposed i.e. hardy-proposed
o Please don't hesitate to add a changelog as a comment, so people know what to look out for
* If a bug is fixed in the current development branch, that is good enough for Fix Released. If the bug also needs to be fixed in a stable release, use the "Target to release" link to nominate it for that release.
</quote>
I am unfamiliar with how to do that, or even if it is appropriate. However this issue/bug still remains unfixed in _current released versions of Ubuntu_, so I am confused as to how/why it should be backported rather than fixed. Aren't backports typically new features rather than fixes to existing packages?
Then would "Target to release" be appropriate?
https:/ /wiki.ubuntu. com/Bugs/ Status
<quote>
Fix Released:
* For a bug task about upstream projects: a release tarball was announced and is publicly available
* For package maintainers, a fix was uploaded to an official Ubuntu repository
o This does not include -proposed i.e. hardy-proposed
o Please don't hesitate to add a changelog as a comment, so people know what to look out for
* If a bug is fixed in the current development branch, that is good enough for Fix Released. If the bug also needs to be fixed in a stable release, use the "Target to release" link to nominate it for that release.
</quote>
I am unfamiliar with how to do that, or even if it is appropriate. However this issue/bug still remains unfixed in _current released versions of Ubuntu_, so I am confused as to how/why it should be backported rather than fixed. Aren't backports typically new features rather than fixes to existing packages?