+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 <em>not</em> be made in a non-maintainer
+upload.
+
+
+ <sect2 id="nmu-version">Source NMU version numbering
+ <p>
+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.
+ <p>
+If you are doing a non-maintainer upload (NMU), you should add a new
+minor version number to the <var>debian-revision</var> 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 <file>foo_1.1-3.dsc</file>. 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 <file>foo_1.1-3.1.dsc</file>.
+ <p>
+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.
+ <p>
+If there is no <var>debian-revision</var> component in the version
+number then one should be created, starting at `0.1'. 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 <var>debian-revision</var> value
+`0.1'. The usual maintainer of a package should start their
+<var>debian-revision</var> numbering at `1'.
+
+
+ <sect2 id="nmu-changelog">
+ <heading>Source NMUs must have a new changelog entry</heading>
+ <p>
+A non-maintainer 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
+non-maintainer's email address in the log entry and the NMU version
+number in it.
+ <p>
+By convention, source NMU changelog entries start with the line
+<example>
+ * Non-maintainer upload
+</example>
+
+
+ <sect2 id="nmu-patch">Source NMUs and the Bug Tracking System
+ <p>
+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 (<tt>diff -u</tt>) detailing their
+changes to the Bug Tracking System.
+ <p>
+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 <ref id="binary-only-nmu"> 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.
+ <p>
+If the source NMU (non-maintainer upload) fixes some existing bugs,
+these bugs should be tagged <em>fixed</em> in the Bug Tracking
+System rather than closed. By convention, only the official package
+maintainer or the original bug submitter are allowed to close bugs.
+Fortunately, Debian's archive system recognizes NMUs and thus marks
+the bugs fixed in the NMU appropriately if the person doing the NMU
+has listed all bugs in the changelog with the <tt>Closes:
+bug#<var>nnnnn</var></tt> syntax (see <ref id="upload-bugfix"> for
+more information describing how to close bugs via the changelog).
+Tagging the bugs <em>fixed</em> ensures that everyone knows that the
+bug was fixed in an NMU; however the bug is left open until the
+changes in the NMU are incorporated officially into the package by
+the official package maintainer.
+ <p>
+Also, after doing an NMU, you have to open a new bug and include a
+patch showing all the changes you have made. Alternatively you can send
+that information to the existing bugs that are fixed by your NMU.
+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.
+ <p>
+In addition, the normal maintainer should <em>always</em> retain the
+entry in the changelog file documenting the non-maintainer upload.
+
+
+ <sect2 id="nmu-build">Building source NMUs
+ <p>
+Source NMU packages are built normally. Pick a distribution using the
+same rules as found in <ref id="distribution">, follow the other
+prescriptions in <ref id="upload">.
+ <p>
+Make sure you do <em>not</em> change the value of the maintainer in
+the <file>debian/control</file> file. Your name as given in the NMU entry of
+the <file>debian/changelog</file> file will be used for signing the
+changes file.
+
+ <sect1 id="ack-nmu">Acknowledging an NMU
+ <p>
+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. You
+can either close them manually by sending the required mails to the
+BTS or by adding the required <tt>closes: #nnnn</tt> in the changelog
+entry of your next upload.
+ <p>
+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 and 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 to help you on a more frequent
+basis as co-maintainer or backup maintainer
+(see <ref id="collaborative-maint">).
+
+
+ <sect id="collaborative-maint">
+ <heading>Collaborative maintenance</heading>
+ <p>
+"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 time. It is strongly recommended that
+packages in which a priority of <tt>Standard</tt> or which are part of
+the base set have co-maintainers.</p>
+ <p>
+Generally there is a primary maintainer and one or more
+co-maintainers. The primary maintainer is the whose name is listed in
+the <tt>Maintainer</tt> field of the <file>debian/control</file> file.
+Co-maintainers are all the other maintainers.</p>
+ <p>
+In its most basic form, the process of adding a new co-maintainer is
+quite easy:<list>
+ <item>
+ <p>
+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 <prgn>CVS</prgn> or
+<prgn>Subversion</prgn>.</p>
+ </item>
+ <item>
+ <p>
+Add the co-maintainer's correct maintainer name and address to the
+<tt>Uploaders</tt> field in the global part of the
+<file>debian/control</file> file.
+<example>
+Uploaders: John Buzz <jbuzz@debian.org>, Adam Rex <arex@debian.org>
+</example>
+</p>
+ </item>
+ <item>
+ <p>
+Using the PTS (<ref id="pkg-tracking-system">), the co-maintainers
+should subscribe themselves to the appropriate source package.</p>
+ </item>
+ </list></p>
+ </sect>
+
+
+
+ <chapt id="best-pkging-practices">
+ <heading>Best Packaging Practices</heading>
+ <p>
+Debian's quality is largely due to the <url id="&url-debian-policy;"
+name="Debian Policy">, which defines explicit baseline requirements
+which all Debian packages must fulfill. Yet there is also a shared
+history of experience which goes beyond the Debian Policy, an
+accumulation of years of experience in packaging. Many very
+talented people have created great tools, tools which help you, the
+Debian maintainer, create and maintain excellent packages.
+ <p>
+This chapter provides some best practices for Debian developers. All
+recommendations are merely that, and are not requirements or policy.
+These are just some subjective hints, advice and pointers collected
+from Debian developers. Feel free to pick and choose whatever works
+best for you.
+
+ <sect id="bpp-debian-rules">
+ <heading>Best practices for <file>debian/rules</file></heading>
+ <p>
+The following recommendations apply to the <file>debian/rules</file>
+file. Since <file>debian/rules</file> controls the build process and
+selects the files which go into the package (directly or indirectly),
+it's usually the file maintainers spend the most time on.
+
+ <sect1 id="helper-scripts">Helper scripts
+ <p>
+The rationale for using helper scripts in <file>debian/rules</file> is
+that lets maintainers use and share common logic among many packages.
+Take for instance the question of installing menu entries: you need to
+put the file into <file>/usr/lib/menu</file>, and add commands to the
+maintainer scripts to register and unregister the menu entries. Since
+this is a very common thing for packages to do, why should each
+maintainer rewrite all this on their own, sometimes with bugs? Also,
+supposing the menu directory changed, every package would have to be
+changed.
+ <p>
+Helper scripts take care of these issues. Assuming you comply with
+the conventions expected by the helper script, the helper takes care
+of all the details. Changes in policy can be made in the helper
+script, then packages just need to be rebuilt with the new version of
+the helper and no other changes.
+ <p>
+<ref id="tools"> contains a couple of different helpers. The most
+common and best (in our opinion) helper system is
+<package>debhelper</package>. Previous helper systems, such as
+<package>debmake</package>, were "monolithic": you couldn't pick and
+choose which part of the helper you found useful, but had to use the
+helper to do everything. <package>debhelper</package>, however, is a
+number of separate little <prgn>dh_*</prgn> programs. For instance,
+<prgn>dh_installman</prgn> installs and compresses man pages,
+<prgn>dh_installmenu</prgn> installs menu files, and so on. Thus, it
+offers enough flexibility to be able to use the little helper scripts,
+where useful, in conjunction with hand-crafted commands in
+<file>debian/rules</file>.
+ <p>
+You can get started with <package>debhelper</package> by reading
+<manref name="debhelper" section="1">, and looking at the examples
+that come with the package. <prgn>dh_make</prgn>, from the
+<package>dh-make</package> package (see <ref id="dh-make">), can be
+used to convert a "vanilla" source package to a
+<package>debhelper</package>ized package. This shortcut, though,
+should not convince you that you do not need to bother understanding
+the individual <prgn>dh_*</prgn> helpers. If you are going to use a
+helper, you do need to take the time to learn to use that helper, to
+learn its expectations and behavior.
+ <p>
+Some people feel that vanilla <file>debian/rules</file> files are
+better, since you don't have to learn the intricacies of any helper
+system. This decision is completely up to you. Use what works for
+you. Many examples of vanilla <file>debian/rules</file> files are
+available at <url id="&url-rules-files;">.
+
+
+ <sect1 id="multiple-patches">
+ <heading>Separating your patches into multiple files</heading>
+ <p>
+Big, complex packages may have many bugs that you need to deal with.
+If you correct a number of bug directly in the source, if you're not
+careful, it can get hard to differentiate the various patches that you
+applied. It can get quite messy when you have to update the package
+to a new upstream version which integrates some of the fixes (but not
+all). You can't take the total set of diffs (e.g., from
+<file>.diff.gz</file>) and work out which patch sets to back out as a
+unit as bugs are fixed upstream.
+ <p>
+Unfortunately, the packaging system as such currently doesn't provide for
+separating the patches into several files. Nevertheless, there are ways to
+separate patches: the patch files are shipped within the Debian patch file
+(<file>.diff.gz</file>), usually within the <file>debian/</file> directory.
+The only difference is that they aren't applied immediately by dpkg-source,
+but by the <tt>build</tt> rule of <file>debian/rules</file>. Conversely,
+they are reverted in the <tt>clean</tt> rule.
+ <p>
+<prgn>dbs</prgn> is one of the more popular approaches to this. It does all
+of the above, and provides a facility for creating new and updating old
+patches. See the package <package>dbs</package> for more information and
+<package>hello-dbs</package> for an example.
+ <p>
+<prgn>dpatch</prgn> also provides these facilities, but it's intented to be
+even easier to use. See the package <package>dpatch</package> for
+documentation and examples (in <file>/usr/share/doc/dpatch</file>).
+
+
+ <sect1 id="multiple-binary">Multiple binary packages
+ <p>
+A single source package will often build several binary packages,
+either to provide several flavors of the same software (examples are
+the <package>vim-*</package> packages) or to make several small
+packages instead of a big one (e.g., if the user can install only the
+subset she needs, and thus save some disk space).
+ <p>
+The second case can be easily managed in <file>debian/rules</file>.
+You just need to move the appropriate files from the build directory
+into the package's temporary trees. You can do this using
+<prgn>install</prgn> (vanilla approach) or <prgn>dh_install</prgn>
+(from <package>debhelper</package>). Be sure to check the different
+permutations of the various packages, ensuring that you have the
+inter-package dependencies set right in <file>debian/control</file>.
+ <p>
+The first case is a bit more difficult since it involves multiple
+recompiles of the same software but with different configure
+options. The <package>vim</package> is an example of how to manage
+this using an hand-crafted <file>debian/rules</file> file.
+
+<!-- &FIXME; Find a good debhelper example with multiple configure/make
+ cycles -->
+ </sect1>
+ </sect>
+
+ <sect id="bpp-debian-maint-scripts">
+ <heading>Best practices for maintainer scripts</heading>
+ <p>
+Maintainer scripts include the files <file>debian/postinst</file>,
+<file>debian/preinst</file>, <file>debian/prerm</file> and
+<file>debian/postrm</file>. These scripts take care of any package
+installation or deinstallation setup which isn't handled merely by the
+creation or removal of files and directories. The following
+instructions supplement the <url id="&url-debian-policy;" name="Debian
+Policy">.
+ <p>
+Maintainer scripts must be idempotent. That means that you need to
+make sure nothing bad will happen if the script is called twice where
+it would usually be called once.
+ <p>
+Standard input and output may be redirected (e.g. into pipes) for
+logging purposes, so don't rely on them being a tty.
+ <p>
+All prompting or interactive configuration should be kept to a
+minimum. When it is necessary, you should use the
+<package>debconf</package> package for the interface. Remember that
+prompting in any case can only be in the <tt>configure</tt> stage of
+the <file>postinst</file> script.
+ <p>
+Keep the maintainer scripts as simple as possible. We suggest you use
+pure POSIX shell scripts. Remember, if you do need any bash features,
+the maintainer script must have a bash sh-bang line. POSIX shell or
+Bash are preferred to Perl, since they enable
+<package>debhelper</package> to easily add bits to the scripts.
+ <p>
+If you change your maintainer scripts, be sure to test package
+removal, double installation, and purging. Be sure that a purged
+package is completely gone, that is, it must remove any files created,
+directly or indirectly, in any maintainer script.
+ <p>
+If you need to check for the existence of a command, you should use
+something like
+<example>if [ -x /usr/sbin/install-docs ]; then ...</example>
+
+If you don't wish to hard-code the path of the command in your
+maintainer script, the following POSIX-compliant shell function may
+help:
+
+&example-pathfind;
+
+You can use this function to search <tt>$PATH</tt> for a command name,
+passed as an argument. It returns true (zero) if the command was
+found, and false if not. This is really the most portable way, since
+<tt>command -v</tt>, <prgn>type</prgn>, and <prgn>which</prgn> are not
+POSIX.
+ <p>
+While <prgn>which</prgn> is an acceptable alternative, since
+it is from the required <package>debianutils</package> package, it's
+not on the root partition. That is, it's in <file>/usr/bin</file> rather
+than <file>/bin</file>, so one can't use it in scripts which are run
+before the <file>/usr</file> partition is mounted. Most scripts won't have
+this problem, though.
+
+
+ <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-miscellaneous.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.
+
+
+
+ <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, but "GTK+" is
+probably not. Try not to assume any knowledge at all. If you must
+use technical terms, introduce them.
+ <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".
+
+
+ <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). Imagine that the synopsis is combined
+with the package name in the following way:
+
+<example>The <var>package-name</var> is a <var>synopsis</var>.</example>
+ <p>
+If the package name is an acronym, it is sometimes useful to expand
+the acronym. For instance, the synopsis for <package>vim</package> is
+"Vi IMproved - enhanced vi editor".
+
+
+ <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.
+It is recommended to use two spaces after full stops in sentences. We
+realize this is an American style rather than European, but it is
+additionally helpful in creating visual space in fixed-width fonts.
+ <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>
+
+ </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 empty.
+ <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>
+ </sect>
+
+<!--
+ <sect1 id="pkg-mgmt-cvs">Managing a package with CVS
+ <p>
+ &FIXME; presentation of cvs-buildpackage, updating sources
+ via CVS (debian/rules refresh).
+-->
+
+
+ <sect id="bpp-config-mgmt">
+ <heading>Configuration management with <package>debconf</package></heading>
+
+ <p>
+<package>Debconf</package> is a configuration management system which
+can be used by all the various packaging scripts
+(<file>postinst</file> mainly) to request feedback from the user
+concerning how to configure the package. Direct user interactions must
+now be avoided in favor of <package>debconf</package>
+interaction. This will enable non-interactive installations in the
+future.
+ <p>
+Debconf is a great tool but it is often poorly used. Many common mistakes
+are listed in the <manref name="debconf-devel" section="8"> man page.
+It is something that you must read if you decide to use debconf.
+ </sect>
+
+
+ <sect id="bpp-i18n">
+ <heading>Internationalization</heading>
+
+ <sect1 id="bpp-i18n-debconf">
+ <heading>Handling debconf translations</heading>
+ <p>
+Like porters, translators have a difficult task. They work on many
+packages and must collaborate with many different
+maintainers. Moreover, most of the time, they are not native English
+speakers, so you may need to be particularly patient with them.
+ <p>
+The goal of <package>debconf</package> was to make packages
+configuration easier for maintainers and for users. Originally,
+translation of debconf templates was handled with
+<prgn>debconf-mergetemplate</prgn>. However, that technique is now
+deprecated; the best way to accomplish <package>debconf</package>
+internationalization is by using the <package>po-debconf</package>
+package. This method is easier both for maintainer and translators;
+transition scripts are provided.
+ <p>
+Using <package>po-debconf</package>, the translation is stored in
+<file>po</file> files (drawing from <prgn>gettext</prgn> translation
+techniques). Special template files contain the original messages and
+mark which fields are translatable. When you change the value of a
+translatable field, by calling <prgn>debconf-updatepo</prgn>, the
+translation is marked as needing attention from the translators. Then,
+at build time, the <prgn>dh_installdebconf</prgn> program takes care
+of all the needed magic to add the template along with the up-to-date
+translations into the binary packages. Refer to the <manref
+name="po-debconf" section="7"> manual page for details.
+ </sect1>
+
+ <sect1 id="bpp-i18n-docs">
+ <heading>Internationalized documentation</heading>
+ <p>
+Internationalizing documentation is crucial for users, but a lot of
+labor. There's no way to eliminate all that work, but you can make things
+easier for translators.
+ <p>
+If you maintain documentation of any size, its easier for translators
+if they have access to a source control system. That lets translators
+see the differences between two versions of the documentation, so, for
+instance, they can see what needs to be retranslated. It is
+recommended that the translated documentation maintain a note about
+what source control revision the translation is based on. An
+interesting system is provided by <url id="&url-i18n-doc-check;"
+name="doc-check"> in the <package>boot-floppies</package> package,
+which shows an overview of the translation status for any given
+language, using structured comments for the current revision of the
+file to be translated and, for a translated file, the revision of the
+original file the translation is based on. You might wish to adapt
+and provide that in your CVS area.
+ <p>
+If you maintain XML or SGML documentation, we suggest that you isolate
+any language-independent information and define those as entities in a
+separate file which is included by all the different
+translations. This makes it much easier, for instance, to keep URLs
+up-to-date across multiple files.
+ </sect1>
+ </sect>
+
+ <sect id="bpp-common-situations">
+ <heading>Common packaging situations</heading>
+
+<!--
+ <sect1 id="bpp-kernel">Kernel modules/patches
+ <p>
+ &FIXME; Heavy use of kernel-package. provide files in
+ /etc/modutils/ for module configuration.
+-->
+
+ <sect1 id="bpp-autotools">
+ <heading>Packages using
+ <prgn>autoconf</prgn>/<prgn>automake</prgn></heading>
+ <p>
+Keeping <prgn>autoconf</prgn>'s <file>config.sub</file> and
+<file>config.guess</file> files up-to-date is critical for porters,
+especially on more volatile architectures. Some very good packaging
+practices for any package using <prgn>autoconf</prgn> and/or
+<prgn>automake</prgn> have been synthesized in
+&file-bpp-autotools; from the <package>autotools-dev</package>
+package. You're strongly encouraged to read this file and
+to follow the given recommendations.
+
+
+ <sect1 id="bpp-libraries">Libraries
+ <p>
+Libraries are always difficult to package for various reasons. The policy
+imposes many constraints to ease their maintenance and to make sure
+upgrades are as simple as possible when a new upstream version comes out.
+A breakage in a library can result in dozens of dependent packages
+breaking.
+ <p>
+Good practices for library packaging have been grouped in
+<url id="&url-libpkg-guide;" name="the library packaging guide">.
+
+
+ <sect1 id="bpp-docs">Documentation
+ <p>
+Be sure to follow the <url id="&url-debian-policy;ch-docs.html"
+ name="Policy on documentation">.</p>
+ <p>
+If your package contains documentation built from XML or SGML, we
+recommend you not ship the XML or SGML source in the binary
+package(s). If users want the source of the documentation, they
+should retrieve the source package.</p>
+ <p>
+Policy specifies that documentation should be shipped in HTML format.
+We also recommend shipping documentation in PDF and plain text format if
+convenient and quality output is possible. However, it is generally
+not appropriate to ship plain text versions of documentation whose source
+format is HTML.</p>
+ <p>
+Major shipped manuals should register themselves with
+<package>doc-base</package> on installation. See the
+<package>doc-base</package> package documentation for more
+information.</p>
+
+
+ <sect1 id="bpp-other">Specific types of packages
+ <p>
+Several specific types of packages have special sub-policies and
+corresponding packaging rules and practices:
+<list>
+ <item>
+Perl related packages have a <url name="Perl policy"
+id="&url-perl-policy;">, some examples of packages following that
+policy are <package>libdbd-pg-perl</package> (binary perl module) or
+<package>libmldbm-perl</package> (arch independent perl module).
+ <item>
+Python related packages have their python policy; see
+&file-python-policy; in the <package>python</package> package.
+ <item>
+Emacs related packages have the <url id="&url-emacs-policy;"
+name="emacs policy">.
+ <item>
+Java related packages have their <url id="&url-java-policy;"
+name="java policy">.
+ <item>
+Ocaml related packages have their own policy, found in
+&file-ocaml-policy; from the <package>ocaml</package> package. A good
+example is the <package>camlzip</package> source package.
+ <item>
+Packages providing XML or SGML DTDs should conform to the
+recommendations found in the <package>sgml-base-doc</package>
+package.
+ <item>
+Lisp packages should register themselves with
+<package>common-lisp-controller</package>, about which see
+&file-lisp-controller;.
+</list>
+ </sect1>
+
+<!--
+ <sect1 id="custom-config-files">Custom configuration files
+ <p>
+ &FIXME; speak of "ucf", explain solution with a template,
+ explain conf.d directories
+
+ <sect1 id="config-with-db">Use of an external database
+ <p>
+ &FIXME; The software may require a database that you need to setup.
+ But the database may be local or distant. Thus you can't depend
+ on a database server but just on the corresponding library.
+
+ sympa may be an example package
+-->
+
+ <sect1 id="bpp-archindepdata">
+ <heading>Architecture-independent data</heading>
+ <p>
+It is not uncommon to have a large amount of architecture-independent
+data packaged with a program. For example, audio files, a collection
+of icons, wallpaper patterns, or other graphic files. If the size of
+this data is negligible compared to the size of the rest of the
+package, it's probably best to keep it all in a single package.
+ <p>
+However, if the size of the data is considerable, consider splitting
+it out into a separate, architecture-independent package ("_all.deb").
+By doing this, you avoid needless duplication of the same data into
+eleven or more .debs, one per each architecture. While this
+adds some extra overhead into the <file>Packages</file> files, it
+saves a lot of disk space on Debian mirrors. Separating out
+architecture-independent data also reduces processing time of
+<prgn>lintian</prgn> or <prgn>linda</prgn> (see <ref id="tools-lint">)
+when run over the entire Debian archive.
+ </sect1>
+ </sect>
+
+ </chapt>
+
+
+ <chapt id="beyond-pkging">
+ <heading>Beyond Packaging</heading>
+ <p>
+Debian is about a lot more than just packaging software and
+maintaining those packages. This chapter contains information about
+ways, often really critical ways, to contribute to Debian beyond
+simply creating and maintaining packages.
+ <p>
+As a volunteer organization, Debian relies on the discretion of its
+members in choosing what they want to work on and in choosing
+the most critical thing to spend their time on.
+
+ <sect id="submit-bug">
+ <heading>Bug reporting</heading>
+ <p>
+We encourage you to file bugs as you find them in Debian packages. In
+fact, Debian developers are often the first line testers. Finding and
+reporting bugs in other developer's packages improves the quality of
+Debian.
+ <p>
+Try to submit the bug from a normal user account at which you are
+likely to receive mail. Do not submit bugs as root.
+ <p>
+Make sure the bug is not already filed against a package. Try to do a
+good job reporting a bug and redirecting it to the proper location.
+For extra credit, you can go through other packages, merging bugs
+which are reported more than once, or setting bug severities to
+`fixed' when they have already been fixed. Note that when you are
+neither the bug submitter nor the package maintainer, you should
+not actually close the bug (unless you secure permission from the
+maintainer).
+ <p>
+From time to time you may want to check what has been going on
+with the bug reports that you submitted. Take this opportunity to
+close those that you can't reproduce anymore. To find
+out all the bugs you submitted, you just have to visit
+<tt>http://&bugs-host;/from:<your-email-addr></tt>.
+
+ <sect1 id="submit-many-bugs">Reporting lots of bugs at once
+ <p>
+Reporting a great number of bugs for the same problem on a great
+number of different packages — i.e., more than 10 — is a deprecated
+practice. Take all possible steps to avoid submitting bulk bugs at
+all. For instance, if checking for the problem can be automated, add
+a new check to <package>lintian</package> so that an error or warning
+is emitted.
+ <p>
+If you report more than 10 bugs on the same topic at once, it is
+recommended that you send a message to &email-debian-devel; describing
+your intention before submitting the report. This will allow other
+developers to verify that the bug is a real problem. In addition, it
+will help prevent a situation in which several maintainers start
+filing the same bug report simultaneously.
+ <p>
+Note that when sending lots of bugs on the same subject, you should
+send the bug report to <email>maintonly@&bugs-host;</email> so
+that the bug report is not forwarded to the bug distribution mailing
+list.
+
+
+ <sect id="qa-effort">Quality Assurance effort
+
+ <sect1 id="qa-daily-work">Daily work
+ <p>
+Even though there is a dedicated group of people for Quality
+Assurance, QA duties are not reserved solely for them. You can
+participate in this effort by keeping your packages as bug-free as
+possible, and as lintian-clean (see <ref id="lintian">) as
+possible. If you do not find that possible, then you should consider
+orphaning some of your packages (see <ref
+id="orphaning">). Alternatively, you may ask the help of other people
+in order to catch up the backlog of bugs that you have (you can ask
+for help on &email-debian-qa; or &email-debian-devel;). At the same
+time, you can look for co-maintainers (see <ref id="collaborative-maint">).
+
+ <sect1 id="qa-bsp">Bug squashing parties
+ <p>
+From time to time the QA group organizes bug squashing parties to get rid of
+as many problems as possible. They are announced on &email-debian-devel-announce;
+and the announce explains what area will be focused on during the party:
+usually they focus on release critical bugs but it may happen that they
+decide to help finish a major upgrade going on (like a new perl version
+which requires recompilation of all the binary modules).
+ <p>
+The rules for non-maintainer uploads differ during the parties because
+the announce of the party is considered like a prior notice for NMU. If
+you have packages that may be affected by the party (because they have
+release critical bugs for example), you should send an update to each of
+the corresponding bug to explain their current status and what you expect
+from the party. If you don't want an NMU, or if you're only interested in a
+patch, or if you will deal yourself with the bug, please explain that in
+the BTS.
+ <p>
+People participating in the party have special rules for NMU, they can
+NMU without prior notice if they upload their NMU to
+DELAYED/3-day at least. All other NMU rules applies as usually, they
+should send the patch of the NMU in the BTS (in one of the open bugs
+fixed by the NMU or in a new bug tagged fixed). They should
+also respect the maintainer's wishes if he expressed some.
+ <p>
+If someone doesn't feel confident with an NMU, he should just send a patch
+to the BTS. It's far better than a broken NMU.
+
+
+ <sect id="contacting-maintainers">Contacting other maintainers
+ <p>
+During your lifetime within Debian, you will have to contact other
+maintainers for various reasons. You may want to discuss a new
+way of cooperating between a set of related packages, or you may
+simply remind someone that a new upstream version is available
+and that you need it.
+ <p>
+Looking up the email address of the maintainer for the package can be
+distracting. Fortunately, there is a simple email alias,
+<tt><package>@&packages-host;</tt>, which provides a way to
+email the maintainer, whatever their individual email address (or
+addresses) may be. Replace <tt><package></tt> with the name of
+a source or a binary package.
+ <p>
+You may also be interested in contacting the persons who are
+subscribed to a given source package via <ref id="pkg-tracking-system">.
+You can do so by using the <tt><package-name>@&pts-host;</tt>
+email address.
+
+
+ <sect id="mia-qa">Dealing with inactive and/or unreachable maintainers
+ <p>
+If you notice that a package is lacking maintenance, you should
+make sure that the maintainer is active and will continue to work on
+their packages. It is possible that they are not active any more, but
+haven't registered out of the system, so to speak. On the other hand,
+it is also possible that they just need a reminder.
+ <p>
+The first step is to politely contact the maintainer, and wait for a
+response, for a reasonable time. It is quite hard to define "reasonable
+time", but it is important to take into account that real life is sometimes
+very hectic. One way to handle this would be send a reminder after two
+weeks.
+ <p>
+If the maintainer doesn't reply within four weeks (a month), one can
+assume that a response will probably not happen. If that happens, you
+should investigate further, and try to gather as much useful information
+about the maintainer in question as possible. This includes:
+ <p>
+ <list>
+ <item>The "echelon" information available through the
+ <url id="&url-debian-db;" name="developers' LDAP database">,
+ which indicates when's the last time a developer has posted to
+ a Debian mailing list. (This includes uploads via
+ debian-*-changes lists.) Also, remember to check whether the
+ maintainer is marked as "on vacation" in the database.
+
+ <item>The number of packages this maintainer is responsible for,
+ and the condition of those packages. In particular, are there
+ any RC bugs that have been open for ages? Furthermore, how
+ many bugs are there in general? Another important piece of
+ information is whether the packages have been NMUed, and if
+ so, by whom?
+
+ <item>Is there any activity of the maintainer outside of Debian?
+ For example, they might have posted something recently to
+ non-Debian mailing lists or news groups.
+ </list>
+ <p>
+One big problem are packages which were sponsored -- the maintainer is not
+an official Debian developer. The echelon information is not available for
+sponsored people, for example, so you need to find and contact the Debian
+developer who has actually uploaded the package. Given that they signed the
+package, they're responsible for the upload anyhow, and should know what
+happened to the person they sponsored.
+ <p>
+It is also allowed to post a query to &email-debian-devel;, asking if anyone
+is aware of the whereabouts of the missing maintainer.
+ <p>
+Once you have gathered all of this, you can contact &email-debian-qa;.
+People on this alias will use the information you provided in order to
+decide how to proceed. For example, they might orphan one or all of the
+packages of the maintainer. If a packages has been NMUed, they might prefer
+to contact the NMUer before orphaning the package -- perhaps the person who
+has done the NMU is interested in the package.
+ <p>
+One last word: please remember to be polite. We are all volunteers and
+cannot dedicate all of our time to Debian. Also, you are not aware of the
+circumstances of the person who is involved. Perhaps they might be
+seriously ill or might even had died -- you do not know who may be on the
+receiving side -- imagine how a relative will feel if they read the e-mail
+of the deceased and find a very impolite, angry and accusing message!)
+ <p>
+On the other hand, although we are volunteers, we do have a responsibility.
+So you can stress the importance of the greater good -- if a maintainer does
+not have the time or interest anymore, they should "let go" and give the
+package to someone with more time.
+
+
+ <sect id="newmaint">
+ <heading>Interacting with prospective Debian developers</heading>
+ <p>
+Debian's success depends on its ability to attract and retain new and
+talented volunteers. If you are an experienced developer, we
+recommend that you get involved with the process of bringing in new
+developers. This section describes how to help new prospective
+developers.
+
+
+ <sect1 id="sponsoring">Sponsoring packages
+ <p>
+Sponsoring a package means uploading a package for a maintainer who is not
+able to do it on their own, a new maintainer applicant. Sponsoring a package
+also means accepting responsibility for it.
+ <p>
+If you wish to volunteer as a sponsor, you can sign up at <url
+id="&url-sponsors;">.
+ <p>
+New maintainers usually have certain difficulties creating Debian packages
+— this is quite understandable. That is why the sponsor is there, to check
+the package and verify that it is good enough for inclusion in Debian.
+(Note that if the sponsored package is new, the ftpmasters will also have to
+inspect it before letting it in.)
+ <p>
+Sponsoring merely by signing the upload or just recompiling is
+<strong>definitely not recommended</strong>. You need to build the source
+package just like you would build a package of your own. Remember that it
+doesn't matter that you left the prospective developer's name both in the
+changelog and the control file, the upload can still be traced to you.
+ <p>
+If you are an application manager for a prospective developer, you can also
+be their sponsor. That way you can also verify how the applicant is
+handling the 'Tasks and Skills' part of their application.
+
+ <sect1>Managing sponsored packages
+ <p>
+By uploading a sponsored package to Debian, you are certifying that
+the package meets minimum Debian standards. That implies that you
+must build and test the package on your own system before uploading.
+ <p>
+You can not simply upload a binary <file>.deb</file> from the sponsoree. In
+theory, you should only ask for the diff file and the location of the
+original source tarball, and then you should download the source and apply
+the diff yourself. In practice, you may want to use the source package
+built by your sponsoree. In that case, you have to check that they haven't
+altered the upstream files in the <file>.orig.tar.gz</file> file that
+they're providing.
+ <p>
+Do not be afraid to write the sponsoree back and point out changes
+that need to be made. It often takes several rounds of back-and-forth
+email before the package is in acceptable shape. Being a sponsor
+means being a mentor.
+ <p>
+Once the package meets Debian standards, build the package with
+<example>dpkg-buildpackage -us -uc</example> and sign it
+with <example>debsign -m"<var>FULLNAME</var> <var>email-addr</var>" <var>changes-file</var></example>
+before uploading it to the incoming directory.
+ <p>
+The Maintainer field of the <file>control</file> file and the
+<file>changelog</file> should list the person who did the packaging, i.e., the
+sponsoree. The sponsoree will therefore get all the BTS mail about the
+package.
+ <p>
+If you prefer to leave a more evident trace of your sponsorship job, you
+can add a line stating it in the most recent changelog entry.
+ <p>
+You are encouraged to keep tabs on the package you sponsor using
+<ref id="pkg-tracking-system">.
+
+ <sect1>Advocating new developers
+ <p>
+See the page about <url id="&url-newmaint-advocate;"
+name="advocating a prospective developer"> at the Debian web site.
+
+ <sect1>Handling new maintainer applications
+ <p>
+Please see <url id="&url-newmaint-amchecklist;" name="Checklist for
+Application Managers"> at the Debian web site.
+
+
+
+ <appendix id="tools">Overview of Debian Maintainer Tools
+ <p>
+This section contains a rough overview of the tools available to
+maintainers. The following is by no means complete or definitive, but
+just a guide to some of the more popular tools.
+ <p>
+Debian maintainer tools are meant to help convenience developers and
+free their time for critical tasks. As Larry Wall says, there's more
+than one way to do it.
+ <p>
+Some people prefer to use high-level package maintenance tools and
+some do not. Debian is officially agnostic on this issue; any tool
+which gets the job done is fine. Therefore, this section is not meant
+to stipulate to anyone which tools they should use or how they should
+go about with their duties of maintainership. Nor is it meant to
+endorse any particular tool to the exclusion of a competing tool.
+ <p>
+Most of the descriptions of these packages come from the actual
+package descriptions themselves. Further information can be found in
+the package documentation itself. You can also see more info with the
+command <tt>apt-cache show <package-name></tt>.</p>
+
+ <sect id="tools-core">
+ <heading>Core tools</heading>
+ <p>
+The following tools are pretty much required for any maintainer.</p>
+
+ <sect1 id="dpkg-dev">
+ <heading><package>dpkg-dev</package>
+ <p>
+<package>dpkg-dev</package> contains the tools (including
+<prgn>dpkg-source</prgn>) required to unpack, build and upload Debian
+source packages. These utilities contain the fundamental, low-level
+functionality required to create and manipulated packages; as such,
+they are required for any Debian maintainer.
+
+ <sect1 id="debconf">
+ <heading><package>debconf</package></heading>
+ <p>
+<package>debconf</package> provides a consistent interface to
+configuring packages interactively. It is user interface
+independent, allowing end-users to configure packages with a
+text-only interface, an HTML interface, or a dialog interface. New
+interfaces can be added modularly.
+ <p>
+You can find documentation for this package in the
+<package>debconf-doc</package> package.
+ <p>
+Many feel that this system should be used for all packages requiring
+interactive configuration; see <ref id="bpp-config-mgmt">.
+<package>debconf</package> is not currently required by Debian Policy,
+but that may change in the future.
+ </sect1>
+
+ <sect1 id="fakeroot">
+ <heading><package>fakeroot</package>
+ <p>
+<package>fakeroot</package> simulates root privileges. This enables
+you to build packages without being root (packages usually want to
+install files with root ownership). If you have
+<package>fakeroot</package> installed, you can build packages as a
+user: <tt>dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot</tt>.
+ </sect1>
+ </sect>
+
+ <sect id="tools-lint">
+ <heading>Package lint tools</heading>
+ <p>
+According to the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (FOLDOC), `lint'
+is "a Unix C language processor which carries out more thorough checks
+on the code than is usual with C compilers." Package lint tools help
+package maintainers by automatically finding common problems and
+policy violations with their packages.</p>
+
+ <sect1 id="lintian">
+ <heading><package>lintian</package></heading>
+ <p>
+<package>lintian</package> dissects Debian packages and emits
+information on bugs
+and policy violations. It contains automated checks for many aspects
+of Debian policy as well as some checks for common errors.
+ <p>
+You should periodically get the newest <package>lintian</package> from
+`unstable' and check over all your packages. Notice that the <tt>-i</tt>
+option provides detailed explanations of what each error or warning means,
+what is its basis in Policy, and commonly how you can fix the problem.
+ <p>
+Refer to <ref id="sanitycheck"> for more information on how and when
+to use Lintian.
+ <p>
+You can also see a summary of all problems reported by Lintian on your
+packages at <url id="&url-lintian;">. Those reports contain the latest
+<prgn>lintian</prgn> output on the whole development distribution
+("unstable").
+ </sect1>
+
+ <sect1 id="linda">
+ <heading><package>linda</package></heading>
+ <p>
+<package>linda</package> is another package linter. It is similar to
+<package>lintian</package> but has a different set of checks. Its
+written in Python rather than Perl.</p>
+ </sect1>
+
+ <sect1 id="debdiff">
+ <heading><package>debdiff</package></heading>
+ <p>
+<prgn>debdiff</prgn> (from the <package>devscripts</package> package, <ref id="devscripts">)
+compares file lists and control files of two packages. It is a simple
+regression test, as it will help you notice if the number of binary
+packages has changed since the last upload, or if something's changed
+in the control file. Of course, some of the changes it reports will be
+all right, but it can help you prevent various accidents.
+ <p>
+You can run it over a pair of binary packages:
+<example>
+debdiff package_1-1_arch.deb package_2-1_arch.deb
+</example>
+ <p>
+Or even a pair of changes files:
+<example>
+debdiff package_1-1_arch.changes package_2-1_arch.changes
+</example>
+ <p>
+For more information please see <manref name="debdiff" section="1">.
+ </sect1>
+
+ </sect>
+
+
+ <sect id="tools-helpers">
+ <heading>Helpers for <file>debian/rules</file></heading>
+ <p>
+Package building tools make the process of writing
+<file>debian/rules</file> files easier. See <ref id="helper-scripts">
+for more information on why these might or might not be desired.
+
+ <sect1 id="debhelper">
+ <heading><package>debhelper</package></heading>
+ <p>
+<package>debhelper</package> is a collection of programs that can be
+used in <file>debian/rules</file> to automate common tasks related to
+building binary Debian packages. Programs are included to install
+various files into your package, compress files, fix file permissions,
+integrate your package with the Debian menu system.
+ <p>
+Unlike some approaches, <package>debhelper</package> is broken into
+several small, granular commands which act in a consistent manner. As
+such, it allows a greater granularity of control than some of the
+other "debian/rules tools".
+ <p>
+There are a number of little <package>debhelper</package> add-on
+packages, too transient to document. You can see the list of most of
+them by doing <tt>apt-cache search ^dh-</tt>.
+ </sect1>
+
+ <sect1 id="debmake">
+ <heading><package>debmake</package>
+ <p>
+<package>debmake</package>, a pre-cursor to
+<package>debhelper</package>, is a less granular
+<file>debian/rules</file> assistant. It includes two main programs:
+<prgn>deb-make</prgn>, which can be used to help a maintainer convert
+a regular (non-Debian) source archive into a Debian source package;
+and <prgn>debstd</prgn>, which incorporates in one big shot the same
+sort of automated functions that one finds in
+<package>debhelper</package>.
+ <p>
+The consensus is that <package>debmake</package> is now deprecated in
+favor of <package>debhelper</package>. However, it's not a bug to use
+<package>debmake</package>.
+ </sect1>
+
+ <sect1 id="dh-make">
+ <heading><package>dh-make</package>
+ <p>
+The <package/dh-make/ package contains <prgn/dh_make/, a program that
+creates a skeleton of files necessary to build a Debian package out of
+a source tree. As the name suggests, <prgn/dh_make/ is a rewrite of
+<package/debmake/ and its template files use dh_* programs from
+<package/debhelper/.
+ <p>
+While the rules files generated by <prgn/dh_make/ are in general a
+sufficient basis for a working package, they are still just the groundwork:
+the burden still lies on the maintainer to finely tune the generated files
+and make the package entirely functional and Policy-compliant.
+ </sect1>
+
+ <sect1 id="yada">
+ <heading><package>yada</package>
+ <p>
+<package>yada</package> is another packaging helper tool. It uses a
+<file>debian/packages</file> file to auto-generate
+<file>debian/rules</file> and other necessary files in the
+<file>debian/</file> subdirectory.
+ <p>
+Note that <package>yada</package> is called "essentially unmaintained"
+by it's own maintainer, Charles Briscoe-Smith. As such, it can be
+considered deprecated.
+ </sect1>
+
+ <sect1 id="equivs">
+ <heading><package>equivs</package>
+ <p>
+<package>equivs</package> is another package for making packages. It
+is often suggested for local use if you need to make a package simply
+to fulfill dependencies. It is also sometimes used when making
+``meta-packages'', which are packages whose only purpose is to depend
+on other packages.</p>
+ </sect1>
+ </sect>
+
+
+
+ <sect id="tools-builders">
+ <heading>Package builders</heading>
+ <p>
+The following packages help with the package building process, general
+driving <prgn>dpkg-buildpackage</prgn> as well as handling supporting
+tasks.</p>
+
+ <sect1 id="cvs-buildpackage">
+ <heading><package>cvs-buildpackage</package>
+ <p>
+<package>cvs-buildpackage</package> provides the capability to inject
+or import Debian source packages into a CVS repository, build a Debian
+package from the CVS repository, and helps in integrating upstream
+changes into the repository.
+ <p>
+These utilities provide an infrastructure to facilitate the use of CVS
+by Debian maintainers. This allows one to keep separate CVS branches
+of a package for <em>stable</em>, <em>unstable</em> and possibly
+<em>experimental</em> distributions, along with the other benefits of
+a version control system.
+ </sect1>
+
+ <sect1 id="debootstrap">
+ <heading><package>debootstrap</package></heading>
+ <p>
+The <package>debootstrap</package> package and script allows you to
+"bootstrap" a Debian base system into any part of your file-system.
+By "base system", we mean the bare minimum of packages required to
+operate and install the rest of the system.
+ <p>
+Having a system like this can be useful in many ways. For instance,
+you can <prgn>chroot</prgn> into it if you want to test your build
+depends. Or, you can test how your package behaves when installed
+into a bare base system. Chroot builders use this package, see below.
+ </sect1>
+
+ <sect1 id="pbuilder">
+ <heading><package>pbuilder</package></heading>
+ <p>
+<package>pbuilder</package> constructs a chrooted system, and builds a
+package inside the chroot. It is very useful to check that a package's
+build-dependencies are correct, and to be sure that unnecessary and
+wrong build dependencies will not exist in the resulting package.</p>
+ <p>
+A related package is <package>pbuilder-uml</package>, which goes even
+further build doing the build within User-mode-linux.</p>
+ </sect1>
+
+ <sect1 id="sbuild">
+ <heading><package>sbuild</package></heading>
+ <p>
+<package>sbuild</package> is another automated builder. It can use
+chrooted environments as well. It can be used stand-alone, or as part
+of a networked, distributed build environment. As the latter, it is
+part of the system used by porters to build binary packages for all
+the available architectures. See <ref id="buildd"> for more
+information, and <url id="&url-buildd;"> to see the system in
+action.</p>
+ </sect1>
+ </sect>
+
+ <sect id="uploaders">
+ <heading>Package uploaders</heading>
+ <p>
+The following packages help automate or simplify the process of
+uploading packages into the official archive.</p>
+
+ <sect1 id="dupload">
+ <heading><package>dupload</package></heading>
+ <p>
+<package>dupload</package> is a package and a script to automatically
+upload Debian packages to the Debian archive, to log the upload, and
+to send mail about the upload of a package. You can configure it for
+new upload locations or methods.
+ </sect1>
+
+ <sect1 id="dput">
+ <heading><package>dput</package></heading>
+ <p>
+The <package>dput</package> package and script does much the same
+thing as <package>dupload</package>, but in a different way. It has
+some features over <package>dupload</package>, such as the ability to
+check the GnuPG signature and checksums before uploading, and the
+possibility of running <prgn>dinstall</prgn> in dry-run mode after the
+upload.
+ </sect1>
+ </sect>
+
+ <sect id="tools-maint-automate">
+ <heading>Maintenance automation</heading>
+ <p>
+The following tools help automate different maintenance tasks, from
+adding changelog entries or signature lines, looking up bugs in Emacs,
+to making use of the newest and official use of
+<file>config.sub</file>.</p>
+
+ <sect1 id="devscripts">
+ <heading><package>devscripts</package></heading>
+ <p>
+<package>devscripts</package> is a package containing wrappers
+and tools which are very helpful for maintaining your Debian
+packages. Example scripts include <prgn>debchange</prgn> and
+<prgn>dch</prgn>, which manipulate your <file>debian/changelog</file>
+file from the command-line, and <prgn>debuild</prgn>, which is a
+wrapper around <prgn>dpkg-buildpackage</prgn>. The <prgn>bts</prgn>
+utility is also very helpful to update the state of bug reports on the
+command line. <prgn>uscan</prgn> can be used to watch for new upstream
+versions of your packages. The <prgn>debrsign</prgn> can be used to
+remotely sign a package prior to upload, which is nice when the
+machine you build the package on is different from where your GPG keys
+are.</p>
+ <p>
+See the <manref name="devscripts" section="1"> manual page for a
+complete list of available scripts.</p>
+ </sect1>
+
+ <sect1 id="autotools-dev">
+ <heading><package>autotools-dev</package></heading>
+ <p>
+Contains best practices for people maintaining packages that use
+<prgn>autoconf</prgn> and/or <prgn>automake</prgn>. Also contains
+canonical <file>config.sub</file> and <file>config.guess</file> files
+which are known to work on all Debian ports.</p>
+ </sect1>
+
+ <sect1 id="dpkg-repack">
+ <heading><package>dpkg-repack</package></heading>
+ <p>
+<prgn>dpkg-repack</prgn> creates Debian package file out of a package
+that has already been installed. If any changes have been made to the
+package while it was unpacked (e.g., files in <file>/etc</file> were
+modified), the new package will inherit the changes.</p>
+ <p>
+This utility can make it easy to copy packages from one computer to
+another, or to recreate packages that are installed on your system
+but no longer available elsewhere, or to store the current state of a
+package before you upgrade it.</p>
+ </sect1>
+
+ <sect1 id="alien">
+ <heading><package>alien</package></heading>
+ <p>
+<prgn>alien</prgn> converts binary packages between various packaging
+formats, including Debian, RPM (RedHat), LSB (Linux Standard Base),
+Solaris and Slackware packages.</p>
+ </sect1>
+
+ <sect1 id="debsums">
+ <heading><package>debsums</package></heading>
+ <p>
+<prgn>debsums</prgn> checks installed packages against their MD5 sums.
+Note that not all packages have MD5 sums, since they aren't required
+by Policy.</p>
+ </sect1>
+
+ <sect1 id="dpkg-dev-el">
+ <heading><package>dpkg-dev-el</package></heading>
+ <p>
+<package>dpkg-dev-el</package> is an Emacs lisp package which provides
+assistance when editing some of the files in the <file>debian</file>
+directory of your package. For instance, when editing
+<file>debian/changelog</file>, there are handy functions for
+finalizing a version and listing the package's current bugs.</p>
+ </sect1>
+
+ <sect1 id="dpkg-depcheck">
+ <heading><package>dpkg-depcheck</package></heading>
+ <p>
+<prgn>dpkg-depcheck</prgn> (from the <package>devscripts</package>
+package, <ref id="devscripts">)
+runs a command under <prgn>strace</prgn> to determine all the packages that
+were used by the said command.
+ <p>
+For Debian packages, this is useful when you have to compose a
+<tt>Build-Depends</tt> line for your new package: running the build
+process through <prgn>dpkg-depcheck</prgn> will provide you with a
+good first approximation of the build-dependencies. For example:
+<example>
+dpkg-depcheck -b debian/rules build
+</example>
+ <p>
+<prgn>dpkg-depcheck</prgn> can also be used to check for run-time
+dependencies, especially if your package uses exec(2) to run other
+programs.
+ <p>
+For more information please see <manref name="dpkg-depcheck" section="1">.
+ </sect1>
+
+ </sect>
+
+
+ <sect id="tools-porting">
+ <heading>Porting tools</heading>
+ <p>
+The following tools are helpful for porters and for
+cross-compilation.</p>
+
+ <sect1 id="quinn-diff">
+ <heading><package>quinn-diff</package>
+ <p>
+<package>quinn-diff</package> is used to locate the differences from
+one architecture to another. For instance, it could tell you which
+packages need to be ported for architecture <var>Y</var>, based on
+architecture <var>X</var>.
+
+ <sect1 id="dpkg-cross">
+ <heading><package>dpkg-cross</package>
+ <p>
+<package>dpkg-cross</package> is a tool for installing libraries and
+headers for cross-compiling in a way similar to
+<package>dpkg</package>. Furthermore, the functionality of
+<prgn>dpkg-buildpackage</prgn> and <prgn>dpkg-shlibdeps</prgn> is
+enhanced to support cross-compiling.
+ </sect1>
+
+
+ <sect id="tools-doc">
+ <heading>Documentation and information</heading>
+ <p>
+The following packages provide information for maintainers or help
+with building documentation.
+
+ <sect1 id="debiandoc-sgml">
+ <heading><package>debiandoc-sgml</package></heading>
+ <p>
+<package>debiandoc-sgml</package> provides the DebianDoc SGML DTD,
+which is commonly used for Debian documentation. This manual, for
+instance, is written in DebianDoc. It also provides scripts for
+building and styling the source to various output formats.</p>
+ <p>
+Documentation for the DTD can be found in the
+<package>debiandoc-sgml-doc</package> package.</p>
+ </sect1>
+
+ <sect1 id="debian-keyring">
+ <heading><package>debian-keyring</package></heading>
+ <p>
+Contains the public GPG and PGP keys of Debian developers. See <ref
+id="key-maint"> and the package documentation for more
+information.</p>
+ </sect1>
+
+ <sect1 id="debview">
+ <heading><package>debview</package></heading>
+ <p>
+<package>debview</package> provides an Emacs mode for viewing Debian
+binary packages. This lets you examine a package without unpacking
+it.</p>
+ </sect1>
+ </sect>
+
+<!-- FIXME: add the following
+
+questionable:
+ ucf
+ dpkg-awk
+ grep-dctrl
+ d-shlibs
+ wajig
+ magpie
+ apt-dpkg-ref
+ apt-show-source
+ apt-show-versions
+ pdbv
+ epm
+ apt-src
+ apt-build
+
+rejected:
+ debaux: too new, unmaintained?
+ dh-make-perl: too new, unmaintained?
+-->