Managing Packages
This chapter contains information related to creating, uploading, maintaining,
and porting packages.
New packages
If you want to create a new package for the Debian distribution, you should
first check the Work-Needing and
Prospective Packages (WNPP) list. Checking the WNPP list ensures that
no one is already working on packaging that software, and that effort is not
duplicated. Read the WNPP web
pages for more information.
Assuming no one else is already working on your prospective package, you must
then submit a bug report ( ) against the
pseudo-package wnpp describing your
plan to create a new package, including, but not limiting yourself to, a
description of the package, the license of the prospective package, and the
current URL where it can be downloaded from.
You should set the subject of the bug to ``ITP: foo
-- short description'', substituting the name of the
new package for foo. The severity of the bug report
must be set to wishlist. If you feel it's necessary, send
a copy to debian-devel@lists.debian.org by putting the address
in the X-Debbugs-CC: header of the message (no, don't use
CC:, because that way the message's subject won't indicate
the bug number).
Please include a Closes:
bug#nnnnn entry in the changelog of the
new package in order for the bug report to be automatically closed once the new
package is installed in the archive (see ).
When closing security bugs include CVE numbers as well as the Closes: #nnnnn.
This is useful for the security team to track vulnerabilities. If an upload is
made to fix the bug before the advisory ID is known, it is encouraged to modify
the historical changelog entry with the next upload. Even in this case, please
include all available pointers to background information in the original
changelog entry.
There are a number of reasons why we ask maintainers to announce their
intentions:
It helps the (potentially new) maintainer to tap into the experience of people
on the list, and lets them know if anyone else is working on it already.
It lets other people thinking about working on the package know that there
already is a volunteer, so efforts may be shared.
It lets the rest of the maintainers know more about the package than the one
line description and the usual changelog entry ``Initial release'' that gets
posted to debian-devel-changes.
It is helpful to the people who live off unstable (and form our first line of
testers). We should encourage these people.
The announcements give maintainers and other interested parties a better feel
of what is going on, and what is new, in the project.
Please see
for common rejection reasons for a new package.
Recording changes in the package
Changes that you make to the package need to be recorded in the
debian/changelog. These changes should provide a concise
description of what was changed, why (if it's in doubt), and note if any bugs
were closed. They also record when the package was completed. This file will
be installed in
/usr/share/doc/package/changelog.Debian.gz,
or
/usr/share/doc/package/changelog.gz
for native packages.
The debian/changelog file conforms to a certain structure,
with a number of different fields. One field of note, the
distribution, is described in . More information about the structure of this file
can be found in the Debian Policy section titled
debian/changelog.
Changelog entries can be used to automatically close Debian bugs when the
package is installed into the archive. See .
It is conventional that the changelog entry of a package that contains a new
upstream version of the software looks like this:
* new upstream version
There are tools to help you create entries and finalize the
changelog for release — see
and .
See also .
Testing the package
Before you upload your package, you should do basic testing on it. At a
minimum, you should try the following activities (you'll need to have an older
version of the same Debian package around):
Install the package and make sure the software works, or upgrade the package
from an older version to your new version if a Debian package for it already
exists.
Run lintian over the package. You can run
lintian as follows: lintian -v
package-version.changes. This will check
the source package as well as the binary package. If you don't understand the
output that lintian generates, try adding the
-i switch, which will cause lintian to
output a very verbose description of the problem.
Normally, a package should not be uploaded if it causes
lintian to emit errors (they will start with E).
For more information on lintian, see .
Optionally run to analyze changes from an older
version, if one exists.
Downgrade the package to the previous version (if one exists) — this tests
the postrm and prerm scripts.
Remove the package, then reinstall it.
Copy the source package in a different directory and try unpacking it and
rebuilding it. This tests if the package relies on existing files outside of
it, or if it relies on permissions being preserved on the files shipped inside
the .diff.gz file.
Layout of the source package
There are two types of Debian source packages:
the so-called native packages, where there is no
distinction between the original sources and the patches applied for Debian
the (more common) packages where there's an original source tarball file
accompanied by another file that contains the patches applied for Debian
For the native packages, the source package includes a Debian source control
file (.dsc) and the source tarball
(.tar.gz). A source package of a non-native package
includes a Debian source control file, the original source tarball
(.orig.tar.gz) and the Debian patches
(.diff.gz).
Whether a package is native or not is determined when it is built by
dpkg-buildpackage1. The rest of this section relates
only to non-native packages.
The first time a version is uploaded which corresponds to a particular upstream
version, the original source tar file should be uploaded and included in the
.changes file. Subsequently, this very same tar file
should be used to build the new diffs and .dsc files, and
will not need to be re-uploaded.
By default, dpkg-genchanges and
dpkg-buildpackage will include the original source tar file
if and only if the Debian revision part of the source version number is 0 or 1,
indicating a new upstream version. This behavior may be modified by using
-sa to always include it or -sd to always
leave it out.
If no original source is included in the upload, the original source tar-file
used by dpkg-source when constructing the
.dsc file and diff to be uploaded
must be byte-for-byte identical with the one already in
the archive.
Please notice that, in non-native packages, permissions on files that are not
present in the .orig.tar.gz will not be preserved, as diff does not store file
permissions in the patch.
Picking a distribution
Each upload needs to specify which distribution the package is intended for.
The package build process extracts this information from the first line of the
debian/changelog file and places it in the
Distribution field of the .changes file.
There are several possible values for this field: `stable', `unstable',
`testing-proposed-updates' and `experimental'. Normally, packages are uploaded
into unstable.
Actually, there are two other possible distributions: `stable-security' and
`testing-security', but read for more
information on those.
It is not possible to upload a package into several distributions at the same
time.
Special case: uploads to the stable distribution
Uploading to stable means that the package will transfered
to the p-u-new-queue for review by the stable release
managers, and if approved will be installed in
stable-proposed-updates directory of the Debian archive.
From there, it will be included in stable with the next
point release.
Extra care should be taken when uploading to stable.
Basically, a package should only be uploaded to stable if one of the following
happens:
a truly critical functionality problem
the package becomes uninstallable
a released architecture lacks the package
In the past, uploads to stable were used to address
security problems as well. However, this practice is deprecated, as uploads
used for Debian security advisories are automatically copied to the appropriate
proposed-updates archive when the advisory is released.
See for detailed information on handling
security problems.
Changing anything else in the package that isn't important is discouraged,
because even trivial fixes can cause bugs later on.
Packages uploaded to stable need to be compiled on systems
running stable, so that their dependencies are limited to
the libraries (and other packages) available in stable;
for example, a package uploaded to stable that depends on
a library package that only exists in unstable will be rejected. Making
changes to dependencies of other packages (by messing with
Provides or shlibs files), possibly making those other
packages uninstallable, is strongly discouraged.
The Release Team (which can be reached at
debian-release@lists.debian.org) will regularly evaluate the
uploads To stable-proposed-updates and decide if your
package can be included in stable. Please be clear (and
verbose, if necessary) in your changelog entries for uploads to
stable, because otherwise the package won't be considered
for inclusion.
It's best practice to speak with the stable release manager
before uploading to
stable/stable-proposed-updates, so
that the uploaded package fits the needs of the next point release.
Special case: uploads to testing/testing-proposed-updates
Please see the information in the testing
section for details.
Uploading a packageUploading to ftp-master
To upload a package, you should upload the files (including the signed changes
and dsc-file) with anonymous ftp to ftp-master.debian.org in
the directory /pub/UploadQueue/.
To get the files processed there, they need to be signed with a key in the
debian keyring.
Please note that you should transfer the changes file last. Otherwise, your
upload may be rejected because the archive maintenance software will parse the
changes file and see that not all files have been uploaded.
You may also find the Debian packages or useful when uploading packages. These handy programs help
automate the process of uploading packages into Debian.
For removing packages, please see the README file in that ftp directory, and
the Debian package .
Uploading to non-USNote: non-us was discontinued with the release of sarge.
Delayed uploads
Delayed uploads are done for the moment via the delayed queue at gluck. The
upload-directory is gluck:~tfheen/DELAYED/[012345678]-day.
0-day is uploaded multiple times per day to ftp-master.
With a fairly recent dput, this section
[tfheen_delayed]
method = scp
fqdn = gluck.debian.org
incoming = ~tfheen
in ~/.dput.cf should work fine for uploading to the DELAYED queue.
Note: Since this upload queue goes to
ftp-master, the prescription found in applies here as well.
Security uploads
Do NOT upload a package to the security
upload queue (oldstable-security, stable-security, etc.) without prior
authorization from the security team. If the package does not exactly meet the
team's requirements, it will cause many problems and delays in dealing with the
unwanted upload. For details, please see section .
Other upload queues
The scp queues on ftp-master, and security are mostly unusable due to the login
restrictions on those hosts.
The anonymous queues on ftp.uni-erlangen.de and ftp.uk.debian.org are currently
down. Work is underway to resurrect them.
The queues on master.debian.org, samosa.debian.org, master.debian.or.jp, and
ftp.chiark.greenend.org.uk are down permanently, and will not be resurrected.
The queue in Japan will be replaced with a new queue on hp.debian.or.jp some
day.
For the time being, the anonymous ftp queue on auric.debian.org (the former
ftp-master) works, but it is deprecated and will be removed at some point in
the future.
Notification that a new package has been installed
The Debian archive maintainers are responsible for handling package uploads.
For the most part, uploads are automatically handled on a daily basis by the
archive maintenance tools, katie. Specifically, updates to
existing packages to the `unstable' distribution are handled automatically. In
other cases, notably new packages, placing the uploaded package into the
distribution is handled manually. When uploads are handled manually, the
change to the archive may take up to a month to occur. Please be patient.
In any case, you will receive an email notification indicating that the package
has been added to the archive, which also indicates which bugs will be closed
by the upload. Please examine this notification carefully, checking if any
bugs you meant to close didn't get triggered.
The installation notification also includes information on what section the
package was inserted into. If there is a disparity, you will receive a
separate email notifying you of that. Read on below.
Note that if you upload via queues, the queue daemon software will also send
you a notification by email.
Specifying the package section, subsection and priority
The debian/control file's Section and
Priority fields do not actually specify where the file will
be placed in the archive, nor its priority. In order to retain the overall
integrity of the archive, it is the archive maintainers who have control over
these fields. The values in the debian/control file are
actually just hints.
The archive maintainers keep track of the canonical sections and priorities for
packages in the override file. If there is a disparity
between the override file and the package's fields as
indicated in debian/control, then you will receive an
email noting the divergence when the package is installed into the archive.
You can either correct your debian/control file for your
next upload, or else you may wish to make a change in the override
file.
To alter the actual section that a package is put in, you need to first make
sure that the debian/control file in your package is
accurate. Next, send an email override-change@debian.org or
submit a bug against ftp.debian.org
requesting that the section or priority for your package be changed from the
old section or priority to the new one. Be sure to explain your reasoning.
For more information about override files, see
dpkg-scanpackages1 and .
Note that the Section field describes both the section as
well as the subsection, which are described in . If the section is main, it should be omitted.
The list of allowable subsections can be found in .
Handling bugs
Every developer has to be able to work with the Debian bug tracking system. This includes
knowing how to file bug reports properly (see ),
how to update them and reorder them, and how to process and close them.
The bug tracking system's features are described in the BTS documentation for
developers. This includes closing bugs, sending followup messages,
assigning severities and tags, marking bugs as forwarded, and other issues.
Operations such as reassigning bugs to other packages, merging separate bug
reports about the same issue, or reopening bugs when they are prematurely
closed, are handled using the so-called control mail server. All of the
commands available on this server are described in the BTS control server
documentation.
Monitoring bugs
If you want to be a good maintainer, you should periodically check the Debian bug tracking system (BTS) for
your packages. The BTS contains all the open bugs against your packages. You
can check them by browsing this page:
http://bugs.debian.org/yourlogin@debian.org.
Maintainers interact with the BTS via email addresses at
bugs.debian.org. Documentation on available commands can be
found at , or, if you have
installed the doc-debian package, you
can look at the local files /usr/share/doc/debian/bug-*.
Some find it useful to get periodic reports on open bugs. You can add a cron
job such as the following if you want to get a weekly email outlining all the
open bugs against your packages:
# ask for weekly reports of bugs in my packages
0 17 * * fri echo index maint address | mail request@bugs.debian.org
Replace address with your official Debian maintainer
address.
Responding to bugs
When responding to bugs, make sure that any discussion you have about bugs is
sent both to the original submitter of the bug, and to the bug itself (e.g.,
123@bugs.debian.org). If you're writing a new mail and you
don't remember the submitter email address, you can use the
123-submitter@bugs.debian.org email to contact the submitter
and to record your mail within the bug log (that means you
don't need to send a copy of the mail to 123@bugs.debian.org).
If you get a bug which mentions FTBFS, this means Fails to build from source.
Porters frequently use this acronym.
Once you've dealt with a bug report (e.g. fixed it), mark it as
done (close it) by sending an explanation message to
123-done@bugs.debian.org. If you're fixing a bug by changing
and uploading the package, you can automate bug closing as described in .
You should never close bugs via the bug server
close command sent to
control@bugs.debian.org. If you do so, the original submitter
will not receive any information about why the bug was closed.
Bug housekeeping
As a package maintainer, you will often find bugs in other packages or have
bugs reported against your packages which are actually bugs in other packages.
The bug tracking system's features are described in the BTS documentation for Debian
developers. Operations such as reassigning, merging, and tagging bug
reports are described in the BTS control server
documentation. This section contains some guidelines for managing your
own bugs, based on the collective Debian developer experience.
Filing bugs for problems that you find in other packages is one of the civic
obligations of maintainership, see for details.
However, handling the bugs in your own packages is even more important.
Here's a list of steps that you may follow to handle a bug report:
Decide whether the report corresponds to a real bug or not. Sometimes users
are just calling a program in the wrong way because they haven't read the
documentation. If you diagnose this, just close the bug with enough
information to let the user correct their problem (give pointers to the good
documentation and so on). If the same report comes up again and again you may
ask yourself if the documentation is good enough or if the program shouldn't
detect its misuse in order to give an informative error message. This is an
issue that may need to be brought up with the upstream author.
If the bug submitter disagrees with your decision to close the bug, they may
reopen it until you find an agreement on how to handle it. If you don't find
any, you may want to tag the bug wontfix to let people know
that the bug exists but that it won't be corrected. If this situation is
unacceptable, you (or the submitter) may want to require a decision of the
technical committee by reassigning the bug to tech-ctte (you may use the clone command of the BTS
if you wish to keep it reported against your package). Before doing so, please
read the recommended
procedure.
If the bug is real but it's caused by another package, just reassign the bug to
the right package. If you don't know which package it should be reassigned to,
you should ask for help on IRC or
on debian-devel@lists.debian.org. Please make sure that the
maintainer(s) of the package the bug is reassigned to know why you reassigned
it.
Sometimes you also have to adjust the severity of the bug so that it matches
our definition of the severity. That's because people tend to inflate the
severity of bugs to make sure their bugs are fixed quickly. Some bugs may even
be dropped to wishlist severity when the requested change is just cosmetic.
If the bug is real but the same problem has already been reported by someone
else, then the two relevant bug reports should be merged into one using the
merge command of the BTS. In this way, when the bug is fixed, all of the
submitters will be informed of this. (Note, however, that emails sent to one
bug report's submitter won't automatically be sent to the other report's
submitter.) For more details on the technicalities of the merge command and its
relative, the unmerge command, see the BTS control server documentation.
The bug submitter may have forgotten to provide some information, in which case
you have to ask them for the required information. You may use the
moreinfo tag to mark the bug as such. Moreover if you can't
reproduce the bug, you tag it unreproducible. Anyone who
can reproduce the bug is then invited to provide more information on how to
reproduce it. After a few months, if this information has not been sent by
someone, the bug may be closed.
If the bug is related to the packaging, you just fix it. If you are not able
to fix it yourself, then tag the bug as help. You can also
ask for help on debian-devel@lists.debian.org or
debian-qa@lists.debian.org. If it's an upstream problem, you
have to forward it to the upstream author. Forwarding a bug is not enough, you
have to check at each release if the bug has been fixed or not. If it has, you
just close it, otherwise you have to remind the author about it. If you have
the required skills you can prepare a patch that fixes the bug and send it to
the author at the same time. Make sure to send the patch to the BTS and to tag
the bug as patch.
If you have fixed a bug in your local copy, or if a fix has been committed to
the CVS repository, you may tag the bug as pending to let
people know that the bug is corrected and that it will be closed with the next
upload (add the closes: in the
changelog). This is particularly useful if you are
several developers working on the same package.
Once a corrected package is available in the unstable
distribution, you can close the bug. This can be done automatically, read
.
When bugs are closed by new uploads
As bugs and problems are fixed in your packages, it is your responsibility as
the package maintainer to close these bugs. However, you should not close a
bug until the package which fixes the bug has been accepted into the Debian
archive. Therefore, once you get notification that your updated package has
been installed into the archive, you can and should close the bug in the BTS.
Also, the bug should be closed with the correct version.
However, it's possible to avoid having to manually close bugs after the upload
— just list the fixed bugs in your debian/changelog
file, following a certain syntax, and the archive maintenance software will
close the bugs for you. For example:
-cannon (3.1415) unstable; urgency=low
* Frobbed with options (closes: Bug#98339)
* Added safety to prevent operator dismemberment, closes: bug#98765,
bug#98713, #98714.
* Added man page. Closes: #98725.
Technically speaking, the following Perl regular expression describes how bug
closing changelogs are identified:
/closes:\s*(?:bug)?\#\s*\d+(?:,\s*(?:bug)?\#\s*\d+)*/ig
We prefer the closes: #XXX
syntax, as it is the most concise entry and the easiest to integrate with the
text of the changelog. Unless specified different by the
-v-switch to dpkg-buildpackage,
only the bugs closed in the most recent changelog entry are closed (basically,
exactly the bugs mentioned in the changelog-part in the
.changes file are closed).
Historically, uploads identified as Non-maintainer
upload (NMU) were tagged fixed instead of being
closed, but that practice was ceased with the advent of version-tracking. The
same applied to the tag fixed-in-experimental.
If you happen to mistype a bug number or forget a bug in the changelog entries,
don't hesitate to undo any damage the error caused. To reopen wrongly closed
bugs, send a reopen XXX command
to the bug tracking system's control address,
control@bugs.debian.org. To close any remaining bugs that were
fixed by your upload, email the .changes file to
XXX-done@bugs.debian.org, where XXX
is the bug number, and put Version: YYY and an empty line as the first two
lines of the body of the email, where YYY is the
first version where the bug has been fixed.
Bear in mind that it is not obligatory to close bugs using the changelog as
described above. If you simply want to close bugs that don't have anything to
do with an upload you made, do it by emailing an explanation to
XXX-done@bugs.debian.org. Do not close bugs in the changelog entry of a version if
the changes in that version of the package don't have any bearing on the bug.
For general information on how to write your changelog entries, see .
Handling security-related bugs
Due to their sensitive nature, security-related bugs must be handled carefully.
The Debian Security Team exists to coordinate this activity, keeping track of
outstanding security problems, helping maintainers with security problems or
fixing them themselves, sending security advisories, and maintaining
security.debian.org.
When you become aware of a security-related bug in a Debian package, whether or
not you are the maintainer, collect pertinent information about the problem,
and promptly contact the security team at
team@security.debian.org as soon as possible. DO NOT UPLOAD any packages for stable; the security
team will do that. Useful information includes, for example:
Which versions of the package are known to be affected by the bug. Check each
version that is present in a supported Debian release, as well as testing and
unstable.
The nature of the fix, if any is available (patches are especially helpful)
Any fixed packages that you have prepared yourself (send only the
.diff.gz and .dsc files and read first)
Any assistance you can provide to help with testing (exploits, regression
testing, etc.)
Any information needed for the advisory (see )
Confidentiality
Unlike most other activities within Debian, information about security issues
must sometimes be kept private for a time. This allows software distributors
to coordinate their disclosure in order to minimize their users' exposure.
Whether this is the case depends on the nature of the problem and corresponding
fix, and whether it is already a matter of public knowledge.
There are several ways developers can learn of a security problem:
they notice it on a public forum (mailing list, web site, etc.)
someone files a bug report
someone informs them via private email
In the first two cases, the information is public and it is important to have a
fix as soon as possible. In the last case, however, it might not be public
information. In that case there are a few possible options for dealing with
the problem:
If the security exposure is minor, there is sometimes no need to keep the
problem a secret and a fix should be made and released.
If the problem is severe, it is preferable to share the information with other
vendors and coordinate a release. The security team keeps in contact with the
various organizations and individuals and can take care of that.
In all cases if the person who reports the problem asks that it not be
disclosed, such requests should be honored, with the obvious exception of
informing the security team in order that a fix may be produced for a stable
release of Debian. When sending confidential information to the security team,
be sure to mention this fact.
Please note that if secrecy is needed you may not upload a fix to unstable (or
anywhere else, such as a public CVS repository). It is not sufficient to
obfuscate the details of the change, as the code itself is public, and can (and
will) be examined by the general public.
There are two reasons for releasing information even though secrecy is
requested: the problem has been known for a while, or the problem or exploit
has become public.
Security Advisories
Security advisories are only issued for the current, released stable
distribution, and not for testing or unstable. When
released, advisories are sent to the
debian-security-announce@lists.debian.org mailing list and
posted on the security web
page. Security advisories are written and posted by the security team.
However they certainly do not mind if a maintainer can supply some of the
information for them, or write part of the text. Information that should be in
an advisory includes:
A description of the problem and its scope, including:
The type of problem (privilege escalation, denial of service, etc.)
What privileges may be gained, and by whom (if any)
How it can be exploited
Whether it is remotely or locally exploitable
How the problem was fixed
This information allows users to assess the threat to their systems.
Version numbers of affected packages
Version numbers of fixed packages
Information on where to obtain the updated packages (usually from the Debian
security archive)
References to upstream advisories, CVE identifiers, and any other information
useful in cross-referencing the vulnerability
Preparing packages to address security issues
One way that you can assist the security team in their duties is to provide
them with fixed packages suitable for a security advisory for the stable Debian
release.
When an update is made to the stable release, care must be taken to avoid
changing system behavior or introducing new bugs. In order to do this, make as
few changes as possible to fix the bug. Users and administrators rely on the
exact behavior of a release once it is made, so any change that is made might
break someone's system. This is especially true of libraries: make sure you
never change the API or ABI, no matter how small the change.
This means that moving to a new upstream version is not a good solution.
Instead, the relevant changes should be back-ported to the version present in
the current stable Debian release. Generally, upstream maintainers are willing
to help if needed. If not, the Debian security team may be able to help.
In some cases, it is not possible to back-port a security fix, for example when
large amounts of source code need to be modified or rewritten. If this
happens, it may be necessary to move to a new upstream version. However, this
is only done in extreme situations, and you must always coordinate that with
the security team beforehand.
Related to this is another important guideline: always test your changes. If
you have an exploit available, try it and see if it indeed succeeds on the
unpatched package and fails on the fixed package. Test other, normal actions
as well, as sometimes a security fix can break seemingly unrelated features in
subtle ways.
Do NOT include any changes in your package
which are not directly related to fixing the vulnerability. These will only
need to be reverted, and this wastes time. If there are other bugs in your
package that you would like to fix, make an upload to proposed-updates in the
usual way, after the security advisory is issued. The security update
mechanism is not a means for introducing changes to your package which would
otherwise be rejected from the stable release, so please do not attempt to do
this.
Review and test your changes as much as possible. Check the differences from
the previous version repeatedly (interdiff from the
patchutils package and
debdiff from devscripts are useful tools for this, see ).
Be sure to verify the following items:
Target the right distribution in your debian/changelog.
For stable this is stable-security and for testing this is
testing-security, and for the previous stable release, this
is oldstable-security. Do not target
distribution-proposed-updates or
stable!
The upload should have urgency=high.
Make descriptive, meaningful changelog entries. Others will rely on them to
determine whether a particular bug was fixed. Always include an external
reference, preferably a CVE identifier, so that it can be cross-referenced.
Include the same information in the changelog for unstable, so that it is clear
that the same bug was fixed, as this is very helpful when verifying that the
bug is fixed in the next stable release. If a CVE identifier has not yet been
assigned, the security team will request one so that it can be included in the
package and in the advisory.
Make sure the version number is proper. It must be greater than the current
package, but less than package versions in later distributions. If in doubt,
test it with dpkg --compare-versions. Be careful not to
re-use a version number that you have already used for a previous upload. For
testing, there must be a higher version in
unstable. If there is none yet (for example, if
testing and unstable have the same
version) you must upload a new version to unstable first.
Do not make source-only uploads if your package has any binary-all packages (do
not use the -S option to
dpkg-buildpackage). The buildd
infrastructure will not build those. This point applies to normal package
uploads as well.
Unless the upstream source has been uploaded to security.debian.org before (by
a previous security update), build the upload with full upstream source
(dpkg-buildpackage -sa). If there has been a previous
upload to security.debian.org with the same upstream version, you may upload
without upstream source (dpkg-buildpackage -sd).
Be sure to use the exact same *.orig.tar.gz as used in the
normal archive, otherwise it is not possible to move the security fix into the
main archives later.
Build the package on a clean system which only has packages installed from the
distribution you are building for. If you do not have such a system yourself,
you can use a debian.org machine (see ) or
setup a chroot (see and ).
Uploading the fixed package
Do NOT upload a package to the security
upload queue (oldstable-security, stable-security, etc.) without prior
authorization from the security team. If the package does not exactly meet the
team's requirements, it will cause many problems and delays in dealing with the
unwanted upload.
Do NOT upload your fix to proposed-updates
without coordinating with the security team. Packages from security.debian.org
will be copied into the proposed-updates directory automatically. If a package
with the same or a higher version number is already installed into the archive,
the security update will be rejected by the archive system. That way, the
stable distribution will end up without a security update for this package
instead.
Once you have created and tested the new package and it has been approved by
the security team, it needs to be uploaded so that it can be installed in the
archives. For security uploads, the place to upload to is
ftp://security-master.debian.org/pub/SecurityUploadQueue/ .
Once an upload to the security queue has been accepted, the package will
automatically be rebuilt for all architectures and stored for verification by
the security team.
Uploads which are waiting for acceptance or verification are only accessible by
the security team. This is necessary since there might be fixes for security
problems that cannot be disclosed yet.
If a member of the security team accepts a package, it will be installed on
security.debian.org as well as proposed for the proper
distribution-proposed-updates on ftp-master.
Moving, removing, renaming, adopting, and orphaning packages
Some archive manipulation operations are not automated in the Debian upload
process. These procedures should be manually followed by maintainers. This
chapter gives guidelines on what to do in these cases.
Moving packages
Sometimes a package will change its section. For instance, a package from the
`non-free' section might be GPL'd in a later version, in which case the package
should be moved to `main' or `contrib'. See the Debian Policy Manual for
guidelines on what section a package belongs in.
If you need to change the section for one of your packages, change the package
control information to place the package in the desired section, and re-upload
the package (see the Debian Policy Manual for
details). You must ensure that you include the
.orig.tar.gz in your upload (even if you are not uploading
a new upstream version), or it will not appear in the new section together with
the rest of the package. If your new section is valid, it will be moved
automatically. If it does not, then contact the ftpmasters in order to
understand what happened.
If, on the other hand, you need to change the subsection
of one of your packages (e.g., ``devel'', ``admin''), the procedure is slightly
different. Correct the subsection as found in the control file of the package,
and re-upload that. Also, you'll need to get the override file updated, as
described in .
Removing packages
If for some reason you want to completely remove a package (say, if it is an
old compatibility library which is no longer required), you need to file a bug
against ftp.debian.org asking that the package be removed;
as all bugs, this bug should normally have normal severity. Make sure you
indicate which distribution the package should be removed from. Normally, you
can only have packages removed from unstable and
experimental. Packages are not removed from
testing directly. Rather, they will be removed
automatically after the package has been removed from
unstable and no package in testing
depends on it.
There is one exception when an explicit removal request is not necessary: If a
(source or binary) package is an orphan, it will be removed semi-automatically.
For a binary-package, this means if there is no longer any source package
producing this binary package; if the binary package is just no longer produced
on some architectures, a removal request is still necessary. For a
source-package, this means that all binary packages it refers to have been
taken over by another source package.
In your removal request, you have to detail the reasons justifying the request.
This is to avoid unwanted removals and to keep a trace of why a package has
been removed. For example, you can provide the name of the package that
supersedes the one to be removed.
Usually you only ask for the removal of a package maintained by yourself. If
you want to remove another package, you have to get the approval of its
maintainer.
Further information relating to these and other package removal related topics
may be found at
and .
If in doubt concerning whether a package is disposable, email
debian-devel@lists.debian.org asking for opinions. Also of
interest is the apt-cache program from the apt package. When invoked as apt-cache
showpkg package, the program will show
details for package, including reverse depends.
Other useful programs include apt-cache rdepends,
apt-rdepends and grep-dctrl. Removal of
orphaned packages is discussed on debian-qa@lists.debian.org.
Once the package has been removed, the package's bugs should be handled. They
should either be reassigned to another package in the case where the actual
code has evolved into another package (e.g. libfoo12 was
removed because libfoo13 supersedes it) or closed if the
software is simply no longer part of Debian.
Removing packages from Incoming
In the past, it was possible to remove packages from
incoming. However, with the introduction of the new
incoming system, this is no longer possible. Instead, you have to upload a new
revision of your package with a higher version than the package you want to
replace. Both versions will be installed in the archive but only the higher
version will actually be available in unstable since the
previous version will immediately be replaced by the higher. However, if you
do proper testing of your packages, the need to replace a package should not
occur too often anyway.
Replacing or renaming packages
When you make a mistake naming your package, you should follow a two-step
process to rename it. First, set your debian/control file
to replace and conflict with the obsolete name of the package (see the Debian Policy Manual for
details). Once you've uploaded the package and the package has moved into the
archive, file a bug against ftp.debian.org asking to remove
the package with the obsolete name. Do not forget to properly reassign the
package's bugs at the same time.
At other times, you may make a mistake in constructing your package and wish to
replace it. The only way to do this is to increase the version number and
upload a new version. The old version will be expired in the usual manner.
Note that this applies to each part of your package, including the sources: if
you wish to replace the upstream source tarball of your package, you will need
to upload it with a different version. An easy possibility is to replace
foo_1.00.orig.tar.gz with
foo_1.00+0.orig.tar.gz. This restriction gives each file
on the ftp site a unique name, which helps to ensure consistency across the
mirror network.
Orphaning a package
If you can no longer maintain a package, you need to inform others, and see
that the package is marked as orphaned. You should set the package maintainer
to Debian QA Group <packages@qa.debian.org> and submit
a bug report against the pseudo package wnpp. The bug report should be titled O:
package -- short
description indicating that the package is now
orphaned. The severity of the bug should be set to
normal; if the package has a priority of standard or
higher, it should be set to important. If you feel it's necessary, send a copy
to debian-devel@lists.debian.org by putting the address in the
X-Debbugs-CC: header of the message (no, don't use CC:, because that way the
message's subject won't indicate the bug number).
If you just intend to give the package away, but you can keep maintainership
for the moment, then you should instead submit a bug against wnpp and title it RFA:
package -- short
description. RFA stands for
Request For Adoption.
More information is on the WNPP
web pages.
Adopting a package
A list of packages in need of a new maintainer is available in the Work-Needing and Prospective Packages
list (WNPP). If you wish to take over maintenance of any of the
packages listed in the WNPP, please take a look at the aforementioned page for
information and procedures.
It is not OK to simply take over a package that you feel is neglected — that
would be package hijacking. You can, of course, contact the current maintainer
and ask them if you may take over the package. If you have reason to believe a
maintainer has gone AWOL (absent without leave), see .
Generally, you may not take over the package without the assent of the current
maintainer. Even if they ignore you, that is still not grounds to take over a
package. Complaints about maintainers should be brought up on the developers'
mailing list. If the discussion doesn't end with a positive conclusion, and
the issue is of a technical nature, consider bringing it to the attention of
the technical committee (see the technical committee web
page for more information).
If you take over an old package, you probably want to be listed as the
package's official maintainer in the bug system. This will happen
automatically once you upload a new version with an updated
Maintainer: field, although it can take a few hours after
the upload is done. If you do not expect to upload a new version for a while,
you can use to get the bug reports.
However, make sure that the old maintainer has no problem with the fact that
they will continue to receive the bugs during that time.
Porting and being ported
Debian supports an ever-increasing number of architectures. Even if you are
not a porter, and you don't use any architecture but one, it is part of your
duty as a maintainer to be aware of issues of portability. Therefore, even if
you are not a porter, you should read most of this chapter.
Porting is the act of building Debian packages for architectures that are
different from the original architecture of the package maintainer's binary
package. It is a unique and essential activity. In fact, porters do most of
the actual compiling of Debian packages. For instance, for a single
i386 binary package, there must be a recompile for each
architecture, which amounts to 12 more builds.
Being kind to porters
Porters have a difficult and unique task, since they are required to deal with
a large volume of packages. Ideally, every source package should build right
out of the box. Unfortunately, this is often not the case. This section
contains a checklist of ``gotchas'' often committed by Debian maintainers —
common problems which often stymie porters, and make their jobs unnecessarily
difficult.
The first and most important thing is to respond quickly to bug or issues
raised by porters. Please treat porters with courtesy, as if they were in fact
co-maintainers of your package (which, in a way, they are). Please be tolerant
of succinct or even unclear bug reports; do your best to hunt down whatever the
problem is.
By far, most of the problems encountered by porters are caused by
packaging bugs in the source packages. Here is a
checklist of things you should check or be aware of.
Make sure that your Build-Depends and
Build-Depends-Indep settings in
debian/control are set properly. The best way to validate
this is to use the debootstrap package
to create an unstable chroot environment (see ).
Within that chrooted environment, install the build-essential package and any package
dependencies mentioned in Build-Depends and/or
Build-Depends-Indep. Finally, try building your package
within that chrooted environment. These steps can be automated by the use of
the pbuilder program which is provided by the package of the
same name (see ).
If you can't set up a proper chroot, dpkg-depcheck may be of
assistance (see ).
See the Debian Policy
Manual for instructions on setting build dependencies.
Don't set architecture to a value other than ``all'' or ``any'' unless you
really mean it. In too many cases, maintainers don't follow the instructions
in the Debian Policy
Manual. Setting your architecture to ``i386'' is usually incorrect.
Make sure your source package is correct. Do dpkg-source -x
package.dsc to make sure your source
package unpacks properly. Then, in there, try building your package from
scratch with dpkg-buildpackage.
Make sure you don't ship your source package with the
debian/files or debian/substvars
files. They should be removed by the `clean' target of
debian/rules.
Make sure you don't rely on locally installed or hacked configurations or
programs. For instance, you should never be calling programs in
/usr/local/bin or the like. Try not to rely on programs
being setup in a special way. Try building your package on another machine,
even if it's the same architecture.
Don't depend on the package you're building being installed already (a sub-case
of the above issue).
Don't rely on the compiler being a certain version, if possible. If not, then
make sure your build dependencies reflect the restrictions, although you are
probably asking for trouble, since different architectures sometimes
standardize on different compilers.
Make sure your debian/rules contains separate ``binary-arch'' and
``binary-indep'' targets, as the Debian Policy Manual requires. Make sure that
both targets work independently, that is, that you can call the target without
having called the other before. To test this, try to run
dpkg-buildpackage -B.
Guidelines for porter uploads
If the package builds out of the box for the architecture to be ported to, you
are in luck and your job is easy. This section applies to that case; it
describes how to build and upload your binary package so that it is properly
installed into the archive. If you do have to patch the package in order to
get it to compile for the other architecture, you are actually doing a source
NMU, so consult instead.
For a porter upload, no changes are being made to the source. You do not need
to touch any of the files in the source package. This includes
debian/changelog.
The way to invoke dpkg-buildpackage is as
dpkg-buildpackage -B
-mporter-email. Of course, set
porter-email to your email address. This will do a
binary-only build of only the architecture-dependent portions of the package,
using the `binary-arch' target in debian/rules.
If you are working on a Debian machine for your porting efforts and you need to
sign your upload locally for its acceptance in the archive, you can run
debsign on your .changes file to have
it signed conveniently, or use the remote signing mode of
dpkg-sig.
Recompilation or binary-only NMU
Sometimes the initial porter upload is problematic because the environment in
which the package was built was not good enough (outdated or obsolete library,
bad compiler, ...). Then you may just need to recompile it in an updated
environment. However, you have to bump the version number in this case, so
that the old bad package can be replaced in the Debian archive
(katie refuses to install new packages if they don't have a
version number greater than the currently available one).
You have to make sure that your binary-only NMU doesn't render the package
uninstallable. This could happen when a source package generates
arch-dependent and arch-independent packages that depend on each other via
$(Source-Version).
Despite the required modification of the changelog, these are called
binary-only NMUs — there is no need in this case to trigger all other
architectures to consider themselves out of date or requiring recompilation.
Such recompilations require special ``magic'' version numbering, so that the
archive maintenance tools recognize that, even though there is a new Debian
version, there is no corresponding source update. If you get this wrong, the
archive maintainers will reject your upload (due to lack of corresponding
source code).
The ``magic'' for a recompilation-only NMU is triggered by using a suffix
appended to the package version number, following the form b<number>.
For instance, if the latest version you are recompiling against was version
``2.9-3'', your NMU should carry a version of ``2.9-3+b1''. If the latest
version was ``3.4+b1'' (i.e, a native package with a previous recompilation
NMU), your NMU should have a version number of ``3.4+b2''. In
the past, such NMUs used the third-level number on the Debian part of the
revision to denote their recompilation-only status; however, this syntax was
ambiguous with native packages and did not allow proper ordering of
recompile-only NMUs, source NMUs, and security NMUs on the same package, and
has therefore been abandoned in favor of this new syntax.
Similar to initial porter uploads, the correct way of invoking
dpkg-buildpackage is dpkg-buildpackage -B
to only build the architecture-dependent parts of the package.
When to do a source NMU if you are a porter
Porters doing a source NMU generally follow the guidelines found in , just like non-porters. However, it is expected that the wait
cycle for a porter's source NMU is smaller than for a non-porter, since porters
have to cope with a large quantity of packages. Again, the situation varies
depending on the distribution they are uploading to. It also varies whether
the architecture is a candidate for inclusion into the next stable release; the
release managers decide and announce which architectures are candidates.
If you are a porter doing an NMU for `unstable', the above guidelines for
porting should be followed, with two variations. Firstly, the acceptable
waiting period — the time between when the bug is submitted to the BTS and
when it is OK to do an NMU — is seven days for porters working on the
unstable distribution. This period can be shortened if the problem is critical
and imposes hardship on the porting effort, at the discretion of the porter
group. (Remember, none of this is Policy, just mutually agreed upon
guidelines.) For uploads to stable or testing, please coordinate with the
appropriate release team first.
Secondly, porters doing source NMUs should make sure that the bug they submit
to the BTS should be of severity `serious' or greater. This ensures that a
single source package can be used to compile every supported Debian
architecture by release time. It is very important that we have one version of
the binary and source package for all architecture in order to comply with many
licenses.
Porters should try to avoid patches which simply kludge around bugs in the
current version of the compile environment, kernel, or libc. Sometimes such
kludges can't be helped. If you have to kludge around compiler bugs and the
like, make sure you #ifdef your work properly; also,
document your kludge so that people know to remove it once the external
problems have been fixed.
Porters may also have an unofficial location where they can put the results of
their work during the waiting period. This helps others running the port have
the benefit of the porter's work, even during the waiting period. Of course,
such locations have no official blessing or status, so buyer beware.
Porting infrastructure and automation
There is infrastructure and several tools to help automate package porting.
This section contains a brief overview of this automation and porting to these
tools; see the package documentation or references for full information.
Mailing lists and web pages
Web pages containing the status of each port can be found at .
Each port of Debian has a mailing list. The list of porting mailing lists can
be found at . These
lists are used to coordinate porters, and to connect the users of a given port
with the porters.
Porter tools
Descriptions of several porting tools can be found in .
buildd
The buildd system is used as a
distributed, client-server build distribution system. It is usually used in
conjunction with auto-builders, which are ``slave'' hosts
which simply check out and attempt to auto-build packages which need to be
ported. There is also an email interface to the system, which allows porters
to ``check out'' a source package (usually one which cannot yet be auto-built)
and work on it.
buildd is not yet available as a
package; however, most porting efforts are either using it currently or
planning to use it in the near future. The actual automated builder is
packaged as sbuild, see its description
in . The complete buildd system also collects a number of as yet
unpackaged components which are currently very useful and in use continually,
such as andrea and wanna-build.
Some of the data produced by buildd
which is generally useful to porters is available on the web at . This data includes nightly updated
information from andrea (source dependencies) and
quinn-diff (packages needing
recompilation).
We are quite proud of this system, since it has so many possible uses.
Independent development groups can use the system for different sub-flavors of
Debian, which may or may not really be of general interest (for instance, a
flavor of Debian built with gcc bounds checking). It will
also enable Debian to recompile entire distributions quickly.
The buildds admins of each arch can be contacted at the mail address
$arch@buildd.debian.org.
When your package is not portable
Some packages still have issues with building and/or working on some of the
architectures supported by Debian, and cannot be ported at all, or not within a
reasonable amount of time. An example is a package that is SVGA-specific (only
i386), or uses other hardware-specific features not supported on all
architectures.
In order to prevent broken packages from being uploaded to the archive, and
wasting buildd time, you need to do a few things:
First, make sure your package does fail to build on
architectures that it cannot support. There are a few ways to achieve this.
The preferred way is to have a small testsuite during build time that will test
the functionality, and fail if it doesn't work. This is a good idea anyway, as
this will prevent (some) broken uploads on all architectures, and also will
allow the package to build as soon as the required functionality is available.
Additionally, if you believe the list of supported architectures is pretty
constant, you should change 'any' to a list of supported architectures in
debian/control. This way, the build will fail also, and indicate this to a
human reader without actually trying.
In order to prevent autobuilders from needlessly trying to build your package,
it must be included in packages-arch-specific, a list used
by the wanna-build script. The current version is available
as ;
please see the top of the file for whom to contact for changes.
Please note that it is insufficient to only add your package to
Packages-arch-specific without making it fail to build on unsupported
architectures: A porter or any other person trying to build your package might
accidently upload it without noticing it doesn't work. If in the past some
binary packages were uploaded on unsupported architectures, request their
removal by filing a bug against ftp.debian.orgNon-Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)
Under certain circumstances it is necessary for someone other than the official
package maintainer to make a release of a package. This is called a
non-maintainer upload, or NMU.
This section handles only source NMUs, i.e. NMUs which upload a new version of
the package. For binary-only NMUs by porters or QA members, please see . If a buildd builds and uploads a package, that
too is strictly speaking a binary NMU. See for some
more information.
The main reason why NMUs are done is when a developer needs to fix another
developer's package in order to address serious problems or crippling bugs or
when the package maintainer is unable to release a fix in a timely fashion.
First and foremost, it is critical that NMU patches to source should be as
non-disruptive as possible. Do not do housekeeping tasks, do not change the
name of modules or files, do not move directories; in general, do not fix
things which are not broken. Keep the patch as small as possible. If things
bother you aesthetically, talk to the Debian maintainer, talk to the upstream
maintainer, or submit a bug. However, aesthetic changes must
not be made in a non-maintainer upload.
And please remember the Hippocratic Oath: Above all, do no harm. It is better
to leave a package with an open grave bug than applying a non-functional patch,
or one that hides the bug instead of resolving it.
How to do a NMU
NMUs which fix important, serious or higher severity bugs are encouraged and
accepted. You should endeavor to reach the current maintainer of the package;
they might be just about to upload a fix for the problem, or have a better
solution.
NMUs should be made to assist a package's maintainer in resolving bugs.
Maintainers should be thankful for that help, and NMUers should respect the
decisions of maintainers, and try to personally help the maintainer by their
work.
A NMU should follow all conventions, written down in this section. For an
upload to testing or unstable, this order of steps is recommended:
Make sure that the package's bugs that the NMU is meant to address are all
filed in the Debian Bug Tracking System (BTS). If they are not, submit them
immediately.
Wait a few days for the response from the maintainer. If you don't get any
response, you may want to help them by sending the patch that fixes the bug.
Don't forget to tag the bug with the patch keyword.
Wait a few more days. If you still haven't got an answer from the maintainer,
send them a mail announcing your intent to NMU the package. Prepare an NMU as
described in this section, and test it carefully on your machine (cf. ). Double check that your patch doesn't have any
unexpected side effects. Make sure your patch is as small and as
non-disruptive as it can be.
Upload your package to incoming in DELAYED/7-day (cf.
), send the final patch to the maintainer
via the BTS, and explain to them that they have 7 days to react if they want to
cancel the NMU.
Follow what happens, you're responsible for any bug that you introduced with
your NMU. You should probably use (PTS)
to stay informed of the state of the package after your NMU.
At times, the release manager or an organized group of developers can announce
a certain period of time in which the NMU rules are relaxed. This usually
involves shortening the period during which one is to wait before uploading the
fixes, and shortening the DELAYED period. It is important to notice that even
in these so-called bug squashing party times, the NMU'er has to file bugs and
contact the developer first, and act later. Please see for details.
For the testing distribution, the rules may be changed by the release managers.
Please take additional care, and acknowledge that the usual way for a package
to enter testing is through unstable.
For the stable distribution, please take extra care. Of course, the release
managers may also change the rules here. Please verify before you upload that
all your changes are OK for inclusion into the next stable release by the
release manager.
When a security bug is detected, the security team may do an NMU, using their
own rules. Please refer to for more
information.
For the differences for Porters NMUs, please see .
Of course, it is always possible to agree on special rules with a maintainer
(like the maintainer asking please upload this fix directly for me, and no diff
required).
NMU version numbering
Whenever you have made a change to a package, no matter how trivial, the
version number needs to change. This enables our packing system to function.
If you are doing a non-maintainer upload (NMU), you should add a new minor
version number to the debian-revision part of the
version number (the portion after the last hyphen). This extra minor number
will start at `1'. For example, consider the package `foo', which is at
version 1.1-3. In the archive, the source package control file would be
foo_1.1-3.dsc. The upstream version is `1.1' and the
Debian revision is `3'. The next NMU would add a new minor number `.1' to the
Debian revision; the new source control file would be
foo_1.1-3.1.dsc.
The Debian revision minor number is needed to avoid stealing one of the package
maintainer's version numbers, which might disrupt their work. It also has the
benefit of making it visually clear that a package in the archive was not made
by the official maintainer.
If there is no debian-revision component in the
version number then one should be created, starting at `0.1' (but in case of a
debian native package still upload it as native package). If it is absolutely
necessary for someone other than the usual maintainer to make a release based
on a new upstream version then the person making the release should start with
the debian-revision value `0.1'. The usual
maintainer of a package should start their
debian-revision numbering at `1'.
If you upload a package to testing or stable, sometimes, you need to fork the
version number tree. For this, version numbers like 1.1-3sarge0.1 could be
used.
Source NMUs must have a new changelog entry
Anyone who is doing a source NMU must create a changelog entry, describing
which bugs are fixed by the NMU, and generally why the NMU was required and
what it fixed. The changelog entry will have the email address of the person
who uploaded it in the log entry and the NMU version number in it.
By convention, source NMU changelog entries start with the line
* Non-maintainer upload
Source NMUs and the Bug Tracking System
Maintainers other than the official package maintainer should make as few
changes to the package as possible, and they should always send a patch as a
unified context diff (diff -u) detailing their changes to
the Bug Tracking System.
What if you are simply recompiling the package? If you just need to recompile
it for a single architecture, then you may do a binary-only NMU as described in
which doesn't require any patch to be sent.
If you want the package to be recompiled for all architectures, then you do a
source NMU as usual and you will have to send a patch.
Bugs fixed by source NMUs used to be tagged fixed instead of closed, but since
version tracking is in place, such bugs are now also closed with the NMU
version.
Also, after doing an NMU, you have to send the information to the existing bugs
that are fixed by your NMU, including the unified diff. Historically, it was
custom to open a new bug and include a patch showing all the changes you have
made. The normal maintainer will either apply the patch or employ an alternate
method of fixing the problem. Sometimes bugs are fixed independently upstream,
which is another good reason to back out an NMU's patch. If the maintainer
decides not to apply the NMU's patch but to release a new version, the
maintainer needs to ensure that the new upstream version really fixes each
problem that was fixed in the non-maintainer release.
In addition, the normal maintainer should always retain
the entry in the changelog file documenting the non-maintainer upload -- and of
course, also keep the changes. If you revert some of the changes, please
reopen the relevant bug reports.
Building source NMUs
Source NMU packages are built normally. Pick a distribution using the same
rules as found in , follow the other
instructions in .
Make sure you do not change the value of the maintainer in
the debian/control file. Your name as given in the NMU
entry of the debian/changelog file will be used for
signing the changes file.
Acknowledging an NMU
If one of your packages has been NMU'ed, you have to incorporate the changes in
your copy of the sources. This is easy, you just have to apply the patch that
has been sent to you. Once this is done, you have to close the bugs that have
been tagged fixed by the NMU. The easiest way is to use the
-v option of dpkg-buildpackage, as this
allows you to include just all changes since your last maintainer upload.
Alternatively, you can close them manually by sending the required mails to the
BTS or by adding the required closes: #nnnn in the changelog
entry of your next upload.
In any case, you should not be upset by the NMU. An NMU is not a personal
attack against the maintainer. It is a proof that someone cares enough about
the package that they were willing to help you in your work, so you should be
thankful. You may also want to ask them if they would be interested in helping
you on a more frequent basis as co-maintainer or backup maintainer (see ).
NMU vs QA uploads
Unless you know the maintainer is still active, it is wise to check the package
to see if it has been orphaned. The current list of orphaned packages which
haven't had their maintainer set correctly is available at . If you perform an NMU on an
improperly orphaned package, please set the maintainer to ``Debian QA Group
<packages@qa.debian.org>''.
Who can do an NMU
Only official, registered Debian Developers can do binary or source NMUs. A
Debian Developer is someone who has their key in the Debian key ring.
Non-developers, however, are encouraged to download the source package and
start hacking on it to fix problems; however, rather than doing an NMU, they
should just submit worthwhile patches to the Bug Tracking System. Maintainers
almost always appreciate quality patches and bug reports.
Terminology
There are two new terms used throughout this section: ``binary-only NMU'' and
``source NMU''. These terms are used with specific technical meaning
throughout this document. Both binary-only and source NMUs are similar, since
they involve an upload of a package by a developer who is not the official
maintainer of that package. That is why it's a
non-maintainer upload.
A source NMU is an upload of a package by a developer who is not the official
maintainer, for the purposes of fixing a bug in the package. Source NMUs
always involves changes to the source (even if it is just a change to
debian/changelog). This can be either a change to the
upstream source, or a change to the Debian bits of the source. Note, however,
that source NMUs may also include architecture-dependent packages, as well as
an updated Debian diff.
A binary-only NMU is a recompilation and upload of a binary package for a given
architecture. As such, it is usually part of a porting effort. A binary-only
NMU is a non-maintainer uploaded binary version of a package, with no source
changes required. There are many cases where porters must fix problems in the
source in order to get them to compile for their target architecture; that
would be considered a source NMU rather than a binary-only NMU. As you can
see, we don't distinguish in terminology between porter NMUs and non-porter
NMUs.
Both classes of NMUs, source and binary-only, can be lumped under the term
``NMU''. However, this often leads to confusion, since most people think
``source NMU'' when they think ``NMU''. So it's best to be careful: always use
``binary NMU'' or ``binNMU'' for binary-only NMUs.
Collaborative maintenance
Collaborative maintenance is a term describing the sharing of Debian package
maintenance duties by several people. This collaboration is almost always a
good idea, since it generally results in higher quality and faster bug fix
turnaround times. It is strongly recommended that packages with a priority of
Standard or which are part of the base set have
co-maintainers.
Generally there is a primary maintainer and one or more co-maintainers. The
primary maintainer is the person whose name is listed in the
Maintainer field of the debian/control
file. Co-maintainers are all the other maintainers.
In its most basic form, the process of adding a new co-maintainer is quite
easy:
Setup the co-maintainer with access to the sources you build the package from.
Generally this implies you are using a network-capable version control system,
such as CVS or Subversion. Alioth (see
) provides such tools, amongst others.
Add the co-maintainer's correct maintainer name and address to the
Uploaders field in the global part of the
debian/control file.
: John Buzz <jbuzz@debian.org>, Adam Rex <arex@debian.org>
Using the PTS ( ), the co-maintainers
should subscribe themselves to the appropriate source package.
Another form of collaborative maintenance is team maintenance, which is
recommended if you maintain several packages with the same group of developers.
In that case, the Maintainer and Uploaders field of each package must be
managed with care. It is recommended to choose between one of the two
following schemes:
Put the team member mainly responsible for the package in the Maintainer field.
In the Uploaders, put the mailing list address, and the team members who care
for the package.
Put the mailing list address in the Maintainer field. In the Uploaders field,
put the team members who care for the package. In this case, you must make
sure the mailing list accept bug reports without any human interaction (like
moderation for non-subscribers).
In any case, it is a bad idea to automatically put all team members in the
Uploaders field. It clutters the Developer's Package Overview listing (see
) with packages one doesn't really care for, and creates
a false sense of good maintenance.
The testing distributionBasics
Packages are usually installed into the `testing' distribution after they have
undergone some degree of testing in unstable.
They must be in sync on all architectures and mustn't have dependencies that
make them uninstallable; they also have to have generally no known
release-critical bugs at the time they're installed into testing. This way,
`testing' should always be close to being a release candidate. Please see
below for details.
Updates from unstable
The scripts that update the testing distribution are run
each day after the installation of the updated packages; these scripts are
called britney. They generate the
Packages files for the testing
distribution, but they do so in an intelligent manner; they try to avoid any
inconsistency and to use only non-buggy packages.
The inclusion of a package from unstable is conditional on
the following:
The package must have been available in unstable for 2, 5
or 10 days, depending on the urgency (high, medium or low). Please note that
the urgency is sticky, meaning that the highest urgency uploaded since the
previous testing transition is taken into account. Those delays may be doubled
during a freeze, or testing transitions may be switched off altogether;
It must have the same number or fewer release-critical bugs than the version
currently available in testing;
It must be available on all architectures on which it has previously been built
in unstable. may be of interest to check that
information;
It must not break any dependency of a package which is already available in
testing;
The packages on which it depends must either be available in
testing or they must be accepted into
testing at the same time (and they will be if they fulfill
all the necessary criteria);
To find out whether a package is progressing into testing or not, see the
testing script output on the web page of the testing
distribution, or use the program grep-excuses which
is in the devscripts package. This
utility can easily be used in a crontab5
to keep yourself informed of the progression of your packages into
testing.
The update_excuses file does not always give the precise
reason why the package is refused; you may have to find it on your own by
looking for what would break with the inclusion of the package. The testing web page gives some
more information about the usual problems which may be causing such troubles.
Sometimes, some packages never enter testing because the
set of inter-relationship is too complicated and cannot be sorted out by the
scripts. See below for details.
Some further dependency analysis is shown on — but be warned, this page also
shows build dependencies which are not considered by britney.
out-of-date
For the testing migration script, outdated means: There are different versions
in unstable for the release architectures (except for the architectures in
fuckedarches; fuckedarches is a list of architectures that don't keep up (in
update_out.py), but currently, it's empty). outdated has nothing whatsoever to
do with the architectures this package has in testing.
Consider this example:
alphaarmtesting1-unstable12
The package is out of date on alpha in unstable, and will not go to testing.
And removing foo from testing would not help at all, the package is still out
of date on alpha, and will not propagate to testing.
However, if ftp-master removes a package in unstable (here on arm):
alphaarmhurd-i386testing11-unstable2-1
In this case, the package is up to date on all release architectures in
unstable (and the extra hurd-i386 doesn't matter, as it's not a release
architecture).
Sometimes, the question is raised if it is possible to allow packages in that
are not yet built on all architectures: No. Just plainly no. (Except if you
maintain glibc or so.)
Removals from testing
Sometimes, a package is removed to allow another package in: This happens only
to allow another package to go in if it's ready in every
other sense. Suppose e.g. that a cannot be installed
with the new version of b; then a may
be removed to allow b in.
Of course, there is another reason to remove a package from testing: It's just
too buggy (and having a single RC-bug is enough to be in this state).
Furthermore, if a package has been removed from unstable, and no package in
testing depends on it any more, then it will automatically be removed.
circular dependencies
A situation which is not handled very well by britney is if package
a depends on the new version of package
b, and vice versa.
An example of this is:
testingunstablea1; depends: b=12; depends: b=2b1; depends: a=12; depends: a=2
Neither package a nor package b is
considered for update.
Currently, this requires some manual hinting from the release team. Please
contact them by sending mail to debian-release@lists.debian.org
if this happens to one of your packages.
influence of package in testing
Generally, there is nothing that the status of a package in testing means for
transition of the next version from unstable to testing, with two exceptions:
If the RC-bugginess of the package goes down, it may go in even if it is still
RC-buggy. The second exception is if the version of the package in testing is
out of sync on the different arches: Then any arch might just upgrade to the
version of the source package; however, this can happen only if the package was
previously forced through, the arch is in fuckedarches, or there was no binary
package of that arch present in unstable at all during the testing migration.
In summary this means: The only influence that a package being in testing has
on a new version of the same package is that the new version might go in
easier.
details
If you are interested in details, this is how britney works:
The packages are looked at to determine whether they are valid candidates.
This gives the update excuses. The most common reasons why a package is not
considered are too young, RC-bugginess, and out of date on some arches. For
this part of britney, the release managers have hammers of various sizes to
force britney to consider a package. (Also, the base freeze is coded in that
part of britney.) (There is a similar thing for binary-only updates, but this
is not described here. If you're interested in that, please peruse the code.)
Now, the more complex part happens: Britney tries to update testing with the
valid candidates; first, each package alone, and then larger and even larger
sets of packages together. Each try is accepted if testing is not more
uninstallable after the update than before. (Before and after this part, some
hints are processed; but as only release masters can hint, this is probably not
so important for you.)
If you want to see more details, you can look it up on
merkel:/org/ftp.debian.org/testing/update_out/ (or there in
~aba/testing/update_out to see a setup with a smaller packages file). Via web,
it's at
The hints are available via .
Direct updates to testing
The testing distribution is fed with packages from unstable according to the
rules explained above. However, in some cases, it is necessary to upload
packages built only for testing. For that, you may want to upload to
testing-proposed-updates.
Keep in mind that packages uploaded there are not automatically processed, they
have to go through the hands of the release manager. So you'd better have a
good reason to upload there. In order to know what a good reason is in the
release managers' eyes, you should read the instructions that they regularly
give on debian-devel-announce@lists.debian.org.
You should not upload to testing-proposed-updates when you
can update your packages through unstable. If you can't
(for example because you have a newer development version in unstable), you may
use this facility, but it is recommended that you ask for authorization from
the release manager first. Even if a package is frozen, updates through
unstable are possible, if the upload via unstable does not pull in any new
dependencies.
Version numbers are usually selected by adding the codename of the testing
distribution and a running number, like 1.2sarge1 for the first upload through
testing-proposed-updates of package version 1.2.
Please make sure you didn't miss any of these items in your upload:
Make sure that your package really needs to go through
testing-proposed-updates, and can't go through unstable;
Make sure that you included only the minimal amount of changes;
Make sure that you included an appropriate explanation in the changelog;
Make sure that you've written testing or
testing-proposed-updates into your target distribution;
Make sure that you've built and tested your package in
testing, not in unstable;
Make sure that your version number is higher than the version in
testing and testing-proposed-updates,
and lower than in unstable;
After uploading and successful build on all platforms, contact the release team
at debian-release@lists.debian.org and ask them to approve your
upload.
Frequently asked questionsWhat are release-critical bugs, and how do they get counted?
All bugs of some higher severities are by default considered release-critical;
currently, these are critical, grave, and serious bugs.
Such bugs are presumed to have an impact on the chances that the package will
be released with the stable release of Debian: in general, if a package has
open release-critical bugs filed on it, it won't get into testing, and
consequently won't be released in stable.
The unstable bug count are all release-critical bugs without either any
release-tag (such as potato, woody) or with release-tag sid; also, only if they
are neither fixed nor set to sarge-ignore. The testing bug count for a package
is considered to be roughly the bug count of unstable count at the last point
when the testing version equalled the unstable version.
This will change post-sarge, as soon as we have versions in the bug tracking
system.
How could installing a package into testing possibly break other packages?
The structure of the distribution archives is such that they can only contain
one version of a package; a package is defined by its name. So when the source
package acmefoo is installed into testing, along with its binary packages
acme-foo-bin, acme-bar-bin, libacme-foo1 and libacme-foo-dev, the old version
is removed.
However, the old version may have provided a binary package with an old soname
of a library, such as libacme-foo0. Removing the old acmefoo will remove
libacme-foo0, which will break any packages which depend on it.
Evidently, this mainly affects packages which provide changing sets of binary
packages in different versions (in turn, mainly libraries). However, it will
also affect packages upon which versioned dependencies have been declared of
the ==, <=, or << varieties.
When the set of binary packages provided by a source package change in this
way, all the packages that depended on the old binaries will have to be updated
to depend on the new binaries instead. Because installing such a source
package into testing breaks all the packages that depended on it in testing,
some care has to be taken now: all the depending packages must be updated and
ready to be installed themselves so that they won't be broken, and, once
everything is ready, manual intervention by the release manager or an assistant
is normally required.
If you are having problems with complicated groups of packages like this,
contact debian-devel or debian-release for help.