Comment 4 for bug 35528

> I don't know what Dapper's security policy is, so I can't be specific,
> but wouldn't a potential remote exploit pretty much automatically
> qualify for a backport?

A backport requires that the source package builds without modification
on dapper. If that's not the case, a fixed package will ned to be
uploaded to -security.

> (And isn't the point of all this malone complexity to handle the
> distinction between dapper and edgy, so that opening another bug is not
> necessary to get it fixed in two versions?)

Yes, a dapper-backports task on this bug is enough.