+
+ <sect id="bpp-debian-control">
+ <heading>Best practices for <file>debian/control</file></heading>
+ <p>
+The following practices are relevant to the
+<file>debian/control</file> file. They supplement the <url
+id="&url-debian-policy;ch-binary.html#s-descriptions"
+name="Policy on package descriptions">.
+ <p>
+The description of the package, as defined by the corresponding field
+in the <file>control</file> file, contains both the package synopsis
+and the long description for the package. <ref id="bpp-desc-basics">
+describes common guidelines for both parts of the package description.
+Following that, <ref id="bpp-pkg-synopsis"> provides guidelines
+specific to the synopsis, and <ref id="bpp-pkg-desc"> contains
+guidelines specific to the description.
+
+ <sect1 id="bpp-desc-basics">
+ <heading>General guidelines for package descriptions</heading>
+ <p>
+The package description should be written for the average likely user,
+the average person who will use and benefit from the package. For
+instance, development packages are for developers, and can be
+technical in their language. More general-purpose applications, such
+as editors, should be written for a less technical user.
+ <p>
+Our review of package descriptions lead us to conclude that most
+package descriptions are technical, that is, are not written to make
+sense for non-technical users. Unless your package really is only for
+technical users, this is a problem.
+ <p>
+How do you write for non-technical users? Avoid jargon. Avoid
+referring to other applications or frameworks that the user might not
+be familiar with — "GNOME" or "KDE" is fine, since users are
+probably familiar with these terms, but "GTK+" is
+probably not. Try not to assume any knowledge at all. If you must
+use technical terms, introduce them.
+ <p>
+Be objective. Package descriptions are not the place for advocating
+your package, no matter how much you love it. Remember that the
+reader may not care about the same things you care about.
+ <p>
+References to the names of any other software packages, protocol names,
+standards, or specifications should use their canonical forms, if one
+exists. For example, use "X Window System", "X11", or "X"; not "X
+Windows", "X-Windows", or "X Window". Use "GTK+", not "GTK" or "gtk".
+Use "GNOME", not "Gnome". Use "PostScript", not "Postscript" or
+"postscript".
+ <p>
+If you are having problems writing your description, you may wish to
+send it along to &email-debian-l10n-english; and request feedback.
+ </sect1>
+
+
+ <sect1 id="bpp-pkg-synopsis">
+ <heading>The package synopsis, or short description</heading>
+ <p>
+The synopsis line (the short description) should be concise. It
+must not repeat the package's name (this is policy).
+ <p>
+It's a good idea to think of the synopsis as an appositive clause, not
+a full sentence. An appositive clause is defined in WordNet as a
+grammatical relation between a word and a noun phrase that follows,
+e.g., "Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer". The appositive clause here is
+"red-nosed reindeer". Since the synopsis is a clause, rather than a
+full sentence, we recommend that it neither start with a capital nor
+end with a full stop (period). It should also not begin with an
+article, either definite ("the") or indefinite ("a" or "an").
+ <p>
+It might help to imagine that the synopsis is combined with the
+package name in the following way:
+
+<example><var>package-name</var> is a <var>synopsis</var>.</example>
+
+Alternatively, it might make sense to think of it as
+
+<example><var>package-name</var> is <var>synopsis</var>.</example>
+
+or, if the package name itself is a plural (such as
+"developers-tools")
+
+<example><var>package-name</var> are <var>synopsis</var>.</example>
+
+This way of forming a sentence from the package name and synopsis
+should be considered as a heuristic and not a strict rule. There are
+some cases where it doesn't make sense to try to form a sentence.
+ </sect1>
+
+ <sect1 id="bpp-pkg-desc">
+ <heading>The long description</heading>
+ <p>
+The long description is the primary information available to the user
+about a package before they install it. It should provide all the
+information needed to let the user decide whether to install the
+package. Assume that the user has already read the package synopsis.
+ <p>
+The long description should consist of full and complete sentences.
+ <p>
+The first paragraph of the long description should answer the
+following questions: what does the package do? what task does it help
+the user accomplish? It is important to describe this in a
+non-technical way, unless of course the audience for the package is
+necessarily technical.
+ <p>
+The following paragraphs should answer the following questions: Why do
+I as a user need this package? What other features does the package
+have? What outstanding features and deficiencies are there compared
+to other packages (e.g., "if you need X, use Y instead")? Is this
+package related to other packages in some way that is not handled by
+the package manager (e.g., "this is the client to the foo server")?
+ <p>
+Be careful to avoid spelling and grammar mistakes. Ensure that you
+spell-check it. <prgn>ispell</prgn> has a special <tt>-g</tt> option
+for <file>debian/control</file> files:
+
+<example>ispell -d american -g debian/control</example>
+ <p>
+User usually expect these questions to be answered in the package
+description.
+ <list>
+ <item>
+What does the package do? If it is an add-on to another package,
+then the short description of the package we are an add on to
+should be put in here.
+ <item>
+Why should I want this package? This is related to the above,
+but not the same (this is a mail user agent; this is cool, fast,
+interfaces with pgp and ldap and imap, has features X, Y, and Z).
+ <item>
+If this package should not be installed directly, but is pulled in
+by another package, this should be mentioned.
+ <item>
+If the package is experimental, or there are other reasons it
+should not be used, if there are other packages that should be
+used instead, it should be here as well.
+ <item>
+How is this package different from the competition? Is it a better
+implementation? more features? different features? Why should I
+choose this package (2. should talk about the class of packages, and
+this about this particular package, if you have information related to both).
+ </list>
+
+ </sect1>
+
+
+ <sect1 id="bpp-upstream-info">
+ <heading>Upstream home page</heading>
+ <p>
+We recommend that you add the URL for the package's home page to the
+package description in <file>debian/control</file>. This information
+should be added at the
+end of description, using the following format:
+
+<example> .
+ Homepage: http://some-project.some-place.org/</example>
+
+Note the spaces prepending the line, which serves to break the lines
+correctly. To see an example of how this displays, see <url
+id="&url-eg-desc-upstream-info;">.
+ <p>
+If there is no home page for the software, this should naturally be
+left out.
+ <p>
+Note that we expect this field will eventually be replaced by a proper
+<file>debian/control</file> field understood by <prgn>dpkg</prgn> and
+<tt>&packages-host;</tt>. If you don't want to bother migrating the
+home page from the description to this field, you should probably wait
+until that is available.</p>
+ </sect1>
+ </sect>
+
+
+ <sect id="bpp-debian-changelog">
+ <heading>Best practices for <file>debian/changelog</file></heading>
+ <p>
+The following practices supplement the <url name="Policy on changelog
+files" id="&url-debian-policy;ch-docs.html#s-changelogs">.</p>
+
+ <sect1 id="bpp-changelog-do">
+ <heading>Writing useful changelog entries</heading>
+ <p>
+The changelog entry for a package revision documents changes in that
+revision, and only them. Concentrate on describing significant and
+user-visible changes that were made since the last version.
+ <p>
+Focus on <em>what</em> was changed — who, how and when are
+usually less important. Having said that, remember to politely
+attribute people who have provided notable help in making the package
+(e.g., those who have sent in patches).
+ <p>
+There's no need to elaborate the trivial and obvious changes. You can
+also aggregate several changes in one entry. On the other hand, don't
+be overly terse if you have undertaken a major change. Be especially
+clear if there are changes that affect the behaviour of the program.
+For further explanations, use the <file>README.Debian</file> file.
+ <p>
+Use common English so that the majority of readers can comprehend it.
+Avoid abbreviations, "tech-speak" and jargon when explaining changes
+that close bugs, especially for bugs filed by users that did not
+strike you as particularly technically savvy. Be polite, don't swear.
+ <p>
+It is sometimes desirable to prefix changelog entries with the names
+of the files that were changed. However, there's no need to
+explicitly list each and every last one of the changed files,
+especially if the change was small or repetitive. You may use
+wildcards.
+ <p>
+When referring to bugs, don't assume anything. Say what the problem
+was, how it was fixed, and append the "closes: #nnnnn" string. See
+<ref id="upload-bugfix"> for more information.
+
+
+ <sect1 id="bpp-changelog-misconceptions">
+ <heading>Common misconceptions about changelog entries</heading>
+ <p>
+The changelog entries should <strong>not</strong> document generic
+packaging issues ("Hey, if you're looking for foo.conf, it's in
+/etc/blah/."), since administrators and users are supposed to be at
+least remotely acquainted with how such things are generally arranged
+on Debian systems. Do, however, mention if you change the location of
+a configuration file.
+ <p>
+The only bugs closed with a changelog entry should be those that are
+actually fixed in the same package revision. Closing unrelated bugs
+in the changelog is bad practice. See <ref id="upload-bugfix">.
+ <p>
+The changelog entries should <strong>not</strong> be used for random
+discussion with bug reporters ("I don't see segfaults when starting
+foo with option bar; send in more info"), general statements on life,
+the universe and everything ("sorry this upload took me so long, but I
+caught the flu"), or pleas for help ("the bug list on this package is
+huge, please lend me a hand"). Such things usually won't be noticed
+by their target audience, but may annoy people who wish to read
+information about actual changes in the package. See <ref
+id="bug-answering"> for more information on how to use the bug
+tracking system.
+ <p>
+It is an old tradition to acknowledge bugs fixed in non-maintainer
+uploads in the first changelog entry of the proper maintainer upload,
+for instance, in a changelog entry like this:
+<example>
+ * Maintainer upload, closes: #42345, #44484, #42444.
+</example>
+This will close the NMU bugs tagged "fixed" when the package makes
+it into the archive. The bug for the fact that an NMU was done can be
+closed the same way. Of course, it's also perfectly acceptable to
+close NMU-fixed bugs by other means; see <ref id="bug-answering">.
+ </sect1>
+
+ <sect1 id="bpp-changelog-errors">
+ <heading>Common errors in changelog entries</heading>
+ <p>
+The following examples demonstrate some common errors or example of
+bad style in changelog entries.
+
+ <p>
+<example>
+ * Fixed all outstanding bugs.
+</example>
+This doesn't tell readers anything too useful, obviously.
+
+ <p>
+<example>
+ * Applied patch from Jane Random.
+</example>
+What was the patch about?
+
+ <p>
+<example>
+ * Late night install target overhaul.
+</example>
+Overhaul which accomplished what? Is the mention of late night
+supposed to remind us that we shouldn't trust that code?
+
+ <p>
+<example>
+ * Fix vsync FU w/ ancient CRTs.
+</example>
+Too many acronyms, and it's not overly clear what the, uh, fsckup (oops,
+a curse word!) was actually about, or how it was fixed.
+
+ <p>
+<example>
+ * This is not a bug, closes: #nnnnnn.
+</example>
+First of all, there's absolutely no need to upload the package to
+convey this information; instead, use the bug tracking system.
+Secondly, there's no explanation as to why the report is not a bug.
+
+ <p>
+<example>
+ * Has been fixed for ages, but I forgot to close; closes: #54321.
+</example>
+If for some reason you didn't mention the bug number in a previous changelog
+entry, there's no problem, just close the bug normally in the BTS. There's
+no need to touch the changelog file, presuming the description of the fix is
+already in (this applies to the fixes by the upstream authors/maintainers as
+well, you don't have to track bugs that they fixed ages ago in your
+changelog).
+
+ <p>
+<example>
+ * Closes: #12345, #12346, #15432
+</example>
+Where's the description? If you can't think of a descriptive message,
+start by inserting the title of each different bug.
+ </sect1>
+
+ <sect1 id="bpp-news-debian">
+ <heading>Suplimenting changelogs with NEWS.Debian files</heading>
+ <p>
+Important news about changes in a package can also be put in NEWS.Debian
+files. The news will be displayed by tools like apt-listchanges, before
+all the rest of the changelogs. This is the preferred means to let the user
+know about significant changes in a package. It is better than using
+debconf notes since it is less annoying and the user can go back and refer
+to the NEWS.Debian file after the install. And it's better than listing
+major changes in README.Debian, since the user can easily miss such notes.
+ <p>
+The file format is the same as a debian changelog file, but leave off
+the asterisks and describe each news item with a full paragraph when
+necessary rather than the more concise summaries that would go in a
+changelog. It's a good idea to run your file through dpkg-parsechangelog to
+check its formatting as it will not be automatically checked during build
+as the changelog is. Here is an example of a real NEWS.Debian file:
+<example>
+cron (3.0pl1-74) unstable; urgency=low
+
+ The checksecurity script is no longer included with the cron package:
+ it now has its own package, "checksecurity". If you liked the
+ functionality provided with that script, please install the new
+ package.
+
+ -- Steve Greenland <stevegr&debian.org> Sat, 6 Sep 2003 17:15:03 -0500
+</example>
+ <p>
+The NEWS.Debian file is installed as
+/usr/share/doc/<package>/NEWS.Debian.gz. It is compressed, and
+always has that name even in Debian native packages. If you use debhelper,
+dh_installchangelogs will install debian/NEWS files for you.
+ <p>
+Unlike changelog files, you need not update NEWS.Debian files with every
+release. Only update them if you have something particularly newsworthy
+that user should know about. If you have no news at all, there's no need
+to ship a NEWS.Debian file in your package. No news is good news!
+ </sect>
+