</para>
<para>
Assuming no one else is already working on your prospective package, you must
-then submit a bug report (<xref linkend="submit-bug"/> ) against the
+then submit a bug report (<xref linkend="submit-bug"/>) against the
pseudo-package <systemitem role="package">wnpp</systemitem> 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.
</para>
<para>
-You should set the subject of the bug to <literal>ITP:
+You should set the subject of the bug to <literal>ITP:
<replaceable>foo</replaceable> -- <replaceable>short
description</replaceable></literal>, substituting the name of the new
-package for <replaceable>foo</replaceable>.
+package for <replaceable>foo</replaceable>.
The severity of the bug report must be set to <literal>wishlist</literal>.
Please send a copy to &email-debian-devel; by using the X-Debbugs-CC
header (don't use CC:, because that way the message's subject won't
indicate the bug number). If you are packaging so many new packages (>10)
-that notifying the mailing list in seperate messages is too disruptive,
-do send a summary after filing the bugs to the debian-devel list instead.
+that notifying the mailing list in separate messages is too disruptive,
+send a summary after filing the bugs to the debian-devel list instead.
This will inform the other developers about upcoming packages and will
allow a review of your description and package name.
</para>
<para>
-Please include a <literal>Closes:
-bug#<replaceable>nnnnn</replaceable></literal> 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 <xref linkend="upload-bugfix"/> ).
+Please include a <literal>Closes: #<replaceable>nnnnn</replaceable></literal>
+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 <xref linkend="upload-bugfix"/>).
</para>
<para>
-When closing security bugs include CVE numbers as well as the Closes: #nnnnn.
+If you think your package needs some explanations for the administrators of the
+NEW package queue, include them in your changelog, send to &email-ftpmaster;
+a reply to the email you receive as a maintainer after your upload, or reply to
+the rejection email in case you are already re-uploading.
+</para>
+<para>
+When closing security bugs include CVE numbers as well as the
+<literal>Closes: #<replaceable>nnnnn</replaceable></literal>.
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
The <filename>debian/changelog</filename> file conforms to a certain structure,
with a number of different fields. One field of note, the
<literal>distribution</literal>, is described in <xref
-linkend="distribution"/> . More information about the structure of this file
+linkend="distribution"/>. More information about the structure of this file
can be found in the Debian Policy section titled
<filename>debian/changelog</filename>.
</para>
<para>
Changelog entries can be used to automatically close Debian bugs when the
-package is installed into the archive. See <xref linkend="upload-bugfix"/> .
+package is installed into the archive. See <xref linkend="upload-bugfix"/>.
</para>
<para>
It is conventional that the changelog entry of a package that contains a new
upstream version of the software looks like this:
</para>
<screen>
- * new upstream version
+ * New upstream release.
</screen>
<para>
There are tools to help you create entries and finalize the
<filename>changelog</filename> for release — see <xref linkend="devscripts"/>
-and <xref linkend="dpkg-dev-el"/> .
+and <xref linkend="dpkg-dev-el"/>.
</para>
<para>
-See also <xref linkend="bpp-debian-changelog"/> .
+See also <xref linkend="bpp-debian-changelog"/>.
</para>
</section>
</para>
<para>
Normally, a package should <emphasis>not</emphasis> be uploaded if it causes
-lintian to emit errors (they will start with <literal>E</literal>).
+<command>lintian</command> to emit errors (they will start with <literal>E</literal>).
</para>
<para>
For more information on <command>lintian</command>, see <xref
-linkend="lintian"/> .
+linkend="lintian"/>.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-Optionally run <xref linkend="debdiff"/> to analyze changes from an older
+Optionally run <command>debdiff</command> (see <xref linkend="debdiff"/>) to analyze changes from an older
version, if one exists.
</para>
</listitem>
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.
+the <filename>.diff.gz</filename> file.
</para>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>
<listitem>
<para>
the (more common) packages where there's an original source tarball file
-accompanied by another file that contains the patches applied for Debian
+accompanied by another file that contains the changes made by Debian
</para>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>
<para>
For the native packages, the source package includes a Debian source control
-file (<literal>.dsc</literal>) and the source tarball
-(<literal>.tar.gz</literal>). A source package of a non-native package
+file (<filename>.dsc</filename>) and the source tarball
+(<filename>.tar.{gz,bz2,lzma}</filename>). A source package of a non-native package
includes a Debian source control file, the original source tarball
-(<literal>.orig.tar.gz</literal>) and the Debian patches
-(<literal>.diff.gz</literal>).
+(<filename>.orig.tar.{gz,bz2,lzma}</filename>) and the Debian changes
+(<filename>.diff.gz</filename> for the source format “1.0” or
+<filename>.debian.tar.{gz,bz2,lzma}</filename> for the source format “3.0 (quilt)”).
</para>
<para>
-Whether a package is native or not is determined when it is built by
-<citerefentry> <refentrytitle>dpkg-buildpackage</refentrytitle>
-<manvolnum>1</manvolnum> </citerefentry>. The rest of this section relates
-only to non-native packages.
+With source format “1.0”, whether a package is native or not was determined
+by <command>dpkg-source</command> at build time. Nowadays it is recommended
+to be explicit about the desired source format by putting either “3.0 (quilt)”
+or “3.0 (native)” in <filename>debian/source/format</filename>.
+The rest of this section relates only to non-native packages.
</para>
<para>
The first time a version is uploaded which corresponds to a particular upstream
<para>
By default, <command>dpkg-genchanges</command> and
<command>dpkg-buildpackage</command> 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
+if and only if the current changelog entry has a different upstream version
+from the preceding entry. This behavior may be modified by using
<literal>-sa</literal> to always include it or <literal>-sd</literal> to always
leave it out.
</para>
</para>
<para>
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.
+present in the <filename>*.orig.tar.{gz,bz2,lzma}</filename> will not be preserved, as diff does not store file
+permissions in the patch. However when using source format “3.0 (quilt)”,
+permissions of files inside the <filename>debian</filename> directory are
+preserved since they are stored in a tar archive.
</para>
</section>
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
<filename>debian/changelog</filename> file and places it in the
-<literal>Distribution</literal> field of the <literal>.changes</literal> file.
+<literal>Distribution</literal> field of the <filename>.changes</filename> file.
</para>
<para>
There are several possible values for this field: <literal>stable</literal>,
<literal>unstable</literal>.
</para>
<para>
-Actually, there are two other possible distributions: <literal>stable-security
-</literal> and <literal>testing-security</literal>, but read
+Actually, there are two other possible distributions: <literal>stable-security</literal>
+and <literal>testing-security</literal>, but read
<xref linkend="bug-security"/> for more information on those.
</para>
<para>
time.
</para>
<section id="upload-stable">
-<title>Special case: uploads to the <literal>stable</literal> and
+<title>Special case: uploads to the <literal>stable</literal> and
<literal>oldstable</literal> distributions</title>
<para>
-Uploading to <literal>stable</literal> means that the package will transfered
+Uploading to <literal>stable</literal> means that the package will transferred
to the <literal>proposed-updates-new</literal> queue for review by the stable
release managers, and if approved will be installed in
<filename>stable-proposed-updates</filename> directory of the Debian archive.
running <literal>stable</literal>, so that their dependencies are limited to
the libraries (and other packages) available in <literal>stable</literal>;
for example, a package uploaded to <literal>stable</literal> that depends on
-a library package that only exists in <literal>unstable</literal> will be
+a library package that only exists in <literal>unstable</literal> will be
rejected. Making changes to dependencies of other packages (by messing with
-<literal>Provides</literal> or <literal>shlibs</literal> files), possibly
+<literal>Provides</literal> or <filename>shlibs</filename> files), possibly
making those other packages uninstallable, is strongly discouraged.
</para>
<para>
Uploads to the <literal>oldstable</literal> distributions are possible as
-long as it hasn't been archived. The same rules as for <literal>stable
-</literal> apply.
+long as it hasn't been archived. The same rules as for <literal>stable</literal>
+apply.
</para>
</section>
<title>Uploading to <literal>ftp-master</literal></title>
<para>
To upload a package, you should upload the files (including the signed changes
-and dsc-file) with anonymous ftp to <literal>&ftp-master-host;</literal> in
+and dsc-file) with anonymous ftp to <literal>&ftp-upload-host;</literal> in
the directory <ulink
-url="ftp://&ftp-master-host;&upload-queue;">&upload-queue;</ulink>.
+url="ftp://&ftp-upload-host;&upload-queue;">&upload-queue;</ulink>.
To get the files processed there, they need to be signed with a key in the
Debian Developers keyring or the Debian Maintainers keyring
(see <ulink url="&url-wiki-dm;"></ulink>).
changes file and see that not all files have been uploaded.
</para>
<para>
-You may also find the Debian packages <xref linkend="dupload"/> or <xref
-linkend="dput"/> useful when uploading packages. These handy programs help
-automate the process of uploading packages into Debian.
+You may also find the Debian packages <link linkend="dupload">dupload</link>
+or <link linkend="dput">dput</link> useful when uploading packages.These
+handy programs help automate the process of uploading packages into Debian.
</para>
<para>
-For removing packages, please see the README file in that ftp directory, and
-the Debian package <xref linkend="dcut"/> .
+For removing packages, please see
+<ulink url="ftp://&ftp-upload-host;&upload-queue;README"/> and
+the Debian package <link linkend="dcut">dcut</link>.
</para>
</section>
<para>
It is sometimes useful to upload a package immediately, but to want this
package to arrive in the archive only a few days later. For example,
-when preparing a <link linkend="nmu">Non-maintainer Upload</link>,
+when preparing a <link linkend="nmu">Non-Maintainer Upload</link>,
you might want to give the maintainer a few days to react.
</para>
<para>
An upload to the delayed directory keeps the package in
-<ulink url="http://ftp-master.debian.org/deferred.html">
-the deferred uploads queue"</ulink>.
+<ulink url="http://ftp-master.debian.org/deferred.html">the deferred uploads queue</ulink>.
When the specified waiting time is over, the package is moved into
the regular incoming directory for processing.
This is done through automatic uploading to
-<literal>&ftp-master-host;</literal> in upload-directory
+<literal>&ftp-upload-host;</literal> in upload-directory
<literal>DELAYED/[012345678]-day</literal>. 0-day is uploaded
-multiple times per day to <literal>&ftp-master-host;</literal>.
+multiple times per day to <literal>&ftp-upload-host;</literal>.
</para>
<para>
With dput, you can use the <literal>--delayed <replaceable>DELAY</replaceable></literal>
<title>Security uploads</title>
<para>
Do <emphasis role="strong">NOT</emphasis> upload a package to the security
-upload queue (<literal>oldstable-security</literal>, <literal>stable-security
-</literal>, etc.) without prior authorization from the security team. If the
+upload queue (<literal>oldstable-security</literal>, <literal>stable-security</literal>,
+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 <xref linkend="bug-security"/> .
+see <xref linkend="bug-security"/>.
</para>
</section>
<section id="s5.6.5">
<title>Other upload queues</title>
<para>
-The scp queues on <literal>&ftp-master-host;</literal>, and <literal>
-security.debian.org</literal> are mostly unusable due to the login restrictions
-on those hosts.
+There is an alternative upload queue in Europe at <ulink
+url="ftp://&ftp-eu-upload-host;&upload-queue;"/>. It operates in
+the same way as <literal>&ftp-upload-host;</literal>, but should be faster
+for European developers.
</para>
<para>
-The anonymous queues on ftp.uni-erlangen.de and ftp.uk.debian.org are currently
-down. Work is underway to resurrect them.
-</para>
-<para>
-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.
+Packages can also be uploaded via ssh to
+<literal>&ssh-upload-host;</literal>; files should be put
+<literal>/srv/upload.debian.org/UploadQueue</literal>. This queue does
+not support <link linkend="delayed-incoming">delayed uploads</link>.
</para>
</section>
For the most part, uploads are automatically handled on a daily basis by the
archive maintenance tools, <command>katie</command>. Specifically, updates to
existing packages to the <literal>unstable</literal> distribution are handled
-automatically. In other cases, notably new packages, placing the uploaded
+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.
<para>
To alter the actual section that a package is put in, you need to first make
sure that the <filename>debian/control</filename> file in your package is
-accurate. Next, send an email &email-override; or submit a
+accurate. Next, submit a
bug against <systemitem role="package">ftp.debian.org</systemitem> 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.
+or priority to the new one. Use a Subject like
+<literal>override: PACKAGE1:section/priority, [...],
+ PACKAGEX:section/priority</literal>, and include the justification for the
+change in the body of the bug report.
</para>
<para>
For more information about <literal>override files</literal>, see
<para>
Note that the <literal>Section</literal> field describes both the section as
well as the subsection, which are described in <xref
-linkend="archive-sections"/> . If the section is main, it should be omitted.
+linkend="archive-sections"/>. If the section is main, it should be omitted.
The list of allowable subsections can be found in <ulink
url="&url-debian-policy;ch-archive.html#s-subsections"></ulink>.
</para>
<para>
Every developer has to be able to work with the Debian <ulink
url="&url-bts;">bug tracking system</ulink>. This includes
-knowing how to file bug reports properly (see <xref linkend="submit-bug"/> ),
+knowing how to file bug reports properly (see <xref linkend="submit-bug"/>),
how to update them and reorder them, and how to process and close them.
</para>
<para>
<para>
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.,
-<email>123@&bugs-host;</email>). If you're writing a new mail and you
+<email><replaceable>123</replaceable>@&bugs-host;</email>). If you're writing a new mail and you
don't remember the submitter email address, you can use the
-<email>123-submitter@&bugs-host;</email> email to contact the submitter
+<email><replaceable>123</replaceable>-submitter@&bugs-host;</email> email to contact the submitter
<emphasis>and</emphasis> to record your mail within the bug log (that means you
-don't need to send a copy of the mail to <email>123@&bugs-host;</email>).
+don't need to send a copy of the mail to <email><replaceable>123</replaceable>@&bugs-host;</email>).
</para>
<para>
If you get a bug which mentions FTBFS, this means Fails to build from source.
<para>
Once you've dealt with a bug report (e.g. fixed it), mark it as
<literal>done</literal> (close it) by sending an explanation message to
-<email>123-done@&bugs-host;</email>. If you're fixing a bug by changing
+<email><replaceable>123</replaceable>-done@&bugs-host;</email>. If you're fixing a bug by changing
and uploading the package, you can automate bug closing as described in <xref
-linkend="upload-bugfix"/> .
+linkend="upload-bugfix"/>.
</para>
<para>
You should <emphasis>never</emphasis> close bugs via the bug server
you should ask for help on <link linkend="irc-channels">IRC</link> or
on &email-debian-devel;. Please inform the maintainer(s) of the package
you reassign the bug to, for example by Cc:ing the message that does the
-reassign to <email>packagename@packages.debian.org</email> and explaining
+reassign to <email><replaceable>packagename</replaceable>@packages.debian.org</email> and explaining
your reasons in that mail. Please note that a simple reassignment is
<emphasis>not</emphasis> e-mailed to the maintainers of the package
being reassigned to, so they won't know about it until they look at
<listitem>
<para>
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 <literal>pending</literal> to let
+the VCS repository, you may tag the bug as <literal>pending</literal> to let
people know that the bug is corrected and that it will be closed with the next
upload (add the <literal>closes:</literal> in the
<filename>changelog</filename>). This is particularly useful if you are
We prefer the <literal>closes: #<replaceable>XXX</replaceable></literal>
syntax, as it is the most concise entry and the easiest to integrate with the
text of the <filename>changelog</filename>. Unless specified different by the
-<replaceable>-v</replaceable>-switch to <command>dpkg-buildpackage</command>,
+<literal>-v</literal>-switch to <command>dpkg-buildpackage</command>,
only the bugs closed in the most recent changelog entry are closed (basically,
exactly the bugs mentioned in the changelog-part in the
<filename>.changes</filename> file are closed).
</para>
<para>
-Historically, uploads identified as <link linkend="nmu">Non-maintainer
+Historically, uploads identified as <link linkend="nmu">non-maintainer
upload (NMU)</link> were tagged <literal>fixed</literal> instead of being
closed, but that practice was ceased with the advent of version-tracking. The
same applied to the tag <literal>fixed-in-experimental</literal>.
to the bug tracking system's control address,
&email-bts-control;. To close any remaining bugs that were
fixed by your upload, email the <filename>.changes</filename> file to
-<email>XXX-done@&bugs-host;</email>, where <replaceable>XXX</replaceable>
-is the bug number, and put Version: YYY and an empty line as the first two
+<email><replaceable>XXX</replaceable>-done@&bugs-host;</email>, where <replaceable>XXX</replaceable>
+is the bug number, and put Version: <replaceable>YYY</replaceable> and an empty line as the first two
lines of the body of the email, where <replaceable>YYY</replaceable> is the
first version where the bug has been fixed.
</para>
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
-<email>XXX-done@&bugs-host;</email>. Do <emphasis
+<email><replaceable>XXX</replaceable>-done@&bugs-host;</email>. Do <emphasis
role="strong">not</emphasis> 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.
</para>
<para>
For general information on how to write your changelog entries, see <xref
-linkend="bpp-debian-changelog"/> .
+linkend="bpp-debian-changelog"/>.
</para>
</section>
fixing them themselves, sending security advisories, and maintaining
<literal>security.debian.org</literal>.
</para>
-<!-- information about the security database goes here once it's ready -->
-<!-- (mdz) -->
<para>
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
&email-security-team; as soon as possible. <emphasis
-role="strong">DO NOT UPLOAD</emphasis> any packages for <literal>stable</literal>;
- the security team will do that. Useful information includes, for example:
+role="strong">DO NOT UPLOAD</emphasis> any packages for <literal>stable</literal>
+without contacting the team. Useful information includes, for example:
</para>
<itemizedlist>
<listitem>
<para>
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
+version that is present in a supported Debian release, as well as
<literal>testing</literal> and <literal>unstable</literal>.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
Any fixed packages that you have prepared yourself (send only the
-<literal>.diff.gz</literal> and <literal>.dsc</literal> files and read <xref
+<filename>.diff.gz</filename> and <filename>.dsc</filename> files and read <xref
linkend="bug-security-building"/> first)
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
Any information needed for the advisory (see <xref
-linkend="bug-security-advisories"/> )
+linkend="bug-security-advisories"/>)
</para>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>
+<para>As the maintainer of the package, you have the responsibility to
+maintain it, even in the stable release. You are in the best position
+to evaluate patches and test updated packages, so please see the sections
+below on how to prepare packages for the Security Team to handle.</para>
+
+<section id="bug-security-tracker">
+<title>The Security Tracker</title>
+<para>
+The security team maintains a central database, the
+<ulink url="http://security-tracker.debian.org/">Debian Security Tracker</ulink>.
+This contains all public information that is known about security issues:
+which packages and versions are affected or fixed, and thus whether stable,
+testing and/or unstable are vulnerable. Information that is still confidential
+is not added to the tracker.
+</para>
+<para>
+You can search it for a specific issue, but also on package name. Look
+for your package to see which issues are still open. If you can, please provide
+more information about those issues, or help to address them in your package.
+Instructions are on the tracker web pages.
+</para>
+</section>
+
<section id="bug-security-confidentiality">
<title>Confidentiality</title>
<para>
be sure to mention this fact.
</para>
<para>
-Please note that if secrecy is needed you may not upload a fix to
+Please note that if secrecy is needed you may not upload a fix to
<literal>unstable</literal> (or
-anywhere else, such as a public CVS repository). It is not sufficient to
+anywhere else, such as a public VCS 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.
</para>
requested: the problem has been known for a while, or the problem or exploit
has become public.
</para>
+<para>
+The Security Team has a PGP-key to enable encrypted communication about
+sensitive issues. See the <ulink url="http://www.debian.org/security/faq#contact">Security Team FAQ</ulink> for details.
+</para>
</section>
<section id="bug-security-advisories">
<systemitem role="package">patchutils</systemitem> package and
<command>debdiff</command> from <systemitem
role="package">devscripts</systemitem> are useful tools for this, see <xref
-linkend="debdiff"/> ).
+linkend="debdiff"/>).
</para>
<para>
Be sure to verify the following items:
<itemizedlist>
<listitem>
<para>
-Target the right distribution in your <filename>debian/changelog</filename>.
+<emphasis role="strong">Target the right distribution</emphasis>
+in your <filename>debian/changelog</filename>.
For <literal>stable</literal> this is <literal>stable-security</literal> and
-for testing this is <literal>testing-security</literal>, and for the previous
+for <literal>testing</literal> this is <literal>testing-security</literal>, and for the previous
stable release, this is <literal>oldstable-security</literal>. Do not target
<replaceable>distribution</replaceable><literal>-proposed-updates</literal> or
<literal>stable</literal>!
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-The upload should have urgency=high.
+The upload should have <emphasis role="strong">urgency=high</emphasis>.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
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 <literal>unstable</literal>,
-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.
-</para>
-</listitem>
-<listitem>
-<para>
-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 <literal>dpkg --compare-versions</literal>. Be careful not to
-re-use a version number that you have already used for a previous upload. For
-<literal>testing</literal>, there must be a higher version in
-<literal>unstable</literal>. If there is none yet (for example, if
-<literal>testing</literal> and <literal>unstable</literal> have the same
-version) you must upload a new version to <literal>unstable</literal> first.
+determine whether a particular bug was fixed. Add <literal>closes:</literal>
+statements for any <emphasis role="strong">Debian bugs</emphasis> filed.
+Always include an external reference, preferably a <emphasis role="strong">CVE
+identifier</emphasis>, so that it can be cross-referenced. However, if a CVE
+identifier has not yet been assigned, do not wait for it but continue the
+process. The identifier can be cross-referenced later.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-Do not make source-only uploads if your package has any binary-all packages (do
-not use the <literal>-S</literal> option to
-<command>dpkg-buildpackage</command>). The <command>buildd</command>
-infrastructure will not build those. This point applies to normal package
-uploads as well.
+Make sure the <emphasis role="strong">version number</emphasis> is proper.
+It must be greater than the current package, but less than package versions in
+later distributions. If in doubt, test it with <literal>dpkg
+--compare-versions</literal>. Be careful not to re-use a version number that
+you have already used for a previous upload, or one that conflicts with a
+binNMU. The convention is to append
+<literal>+</literal><replaceable>codename</replaceable><literal>1</literal>, e.g.
+<literal>1:2.4.3-4+lenny1</literal>, of course increasing 1 for any subsequent
+uploads.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
Unless the upstream source has been uploaded to <literal>security.debian.org
-</literal> before (by a previous security update), build the upload with full
-upstream source (<literal>dpkg-buildpackage -sa</literal>). If there has been
-a previous upload to <literal>security.debian.org</literal> with the same
-upstream version, you may upload without upstream source (<literal>
-dpkg-buildpackage -sd</literal>).
+</literal> before (by a previous security update), build the upload <emphasis
+role="strong">with full upstream source</emphasis> (<literal>dpkg-buildpackage
+-sa</literal>). If there has been a previous upload to
+<literal>security.debian.org</literal> with the same upstream version, you may
+upload without upstream source (<literal>dpkg-buildpackage -sd</literal>).
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-Be sure to use the exact same <filename>*.orig.tar.gz</filename> as used in the
+Be sure to use the <emphasis role="strong">exact same
+<filename>*.orig.tar.{gz,bz2,lzma}</filename></emphasis> as used in the
normal archive, otherwise it is not possible to move the security fix into the
main archives later.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-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 <xref linkend="server-machines"/> ) or
-setup a chroot (see <xref linkend="pbuilder"/> and <xref
-linkend="debootstrap"/> ).
+Build the package on a <emphasis role="strong">clean system</emphasis> 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
+<xref linkend="server-machines"/>) or setup a chroot (see
+<xref linkend="pbuilder"/> and <xref linkend="debootstrap"/>).
</para>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>
<title>Uploading the fixed package</title>
<para>
Do <emphasis role="strong">NOT</emphasis> upload a package to the security
-upload queue (<literal>oldstable-security</literal>, <literal>stable-security
-</literal>, etc.) without prior authorization from the security team. If the
-package does not exactly meet the team's requirements, it will cause many
+upload queue (<literal>oldstable-security</literal>, <literal>stable-security</literal>,
+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.
</para>
<para>
-Do <emphasis role="strong">NOT</emphasis> upload your fix to <literal>
-proposed-updates</literal> without coordinating with the security team.
+Do <emphasis role="strong">NOT</emphasis> upload your fix to
+<literal>proposed-updates</literal> without coordinating with the security team.
Packages from <literal>security.debian.org</literal> will be copied into
the <literal>proposed-updates</literal> directory automatically. If a package
with the same or a higher version number is already installed into the archive,
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
-<literal>ftp://security-master.debian.org/pub/SecurityUploadQueue/</literal> .
+<literal>ftp://security-master.debian.org/pub/SecurityUploadQueue/</literal>.
</para>
<para>
Once an upload to the security queue has been accepted, the package will
-automatically be rebuilt for all architectures and stored for verification by
+automatically be built for all architectures and stored for verification by
the security team.
</para>
<para>
the package (see the <ulink
url="&url-debian-policy;">Debian Policy Manual</ulink> for
details). You must ensure that you include the
-<filename>.orig.tar.gz</filename> in your upload (even if you are not uploading
+<filename>.orig.tar.{gz,bz2,lzma}</filename> 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
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 <xref linkend="override-file"/> .
+described in <xref linkend="override-file"/>.
</para>
</section>
old compatibility library which is no longer required), you need to file a bug
against <literal>ftp.debian.org</literal> asking that the package be removed;
as all bugs, this bug should normally have normal severity.
-The bug title should be in the form <literal>RM: <replaceable>package
-</replaceable> <replaceable>[architecture list]</replaceable> --
+The bug title should be in the form <literal>RM: <replaceable>package</replaceable>
+<replaceable>[architecture list]</replaceable> --
<replaceable>reason</replaceable></literal>, where <replaceable>package</replaceable>
is the package to be removed and <replaceable>reason</replaceable> is a
-short summary of the reason for the removal request.
+short summary of the reason for the removal request.
<replaceable>[architecture list]</replaceable> is optional and only needed
if the removal request only applies to some architectures, not all. Note
that the <command>reportbug</command> will create a title conforming
-to these rules when you use it to report a bug against the <literal>
-ftp.debian.org</literal> pseudo-package.
+to these rules when you use it to report a bug against the
+<literal>ftp.debian.org</literal> pseudo-package.
</para>
<para>
</para>
<para>
-Note that removals can only be done for the <literal>unstable
-</literal>, <literal>experimental</literal> and <literal>stable
-</literal> distribution. Packages are not removed from
+Note that removals can only be done for the <literal>unstable</literal>,
+<literal>experimental</literal> and <literal>stable</literal>
+distribution. Packages are not removed from
<literal>testing</literal> directly. Rather, they will be removed
automatically after the package has been removed from
-<literal>unstable</literal> and no package in <literal>testing
-</literal> depends on it.
+<literal>unstable</literal> and no package in
+<literal>testing</literal> depends on it.
</para>
<para>
There is one exception when an explicit removal request is not necessary: If a
role="package">apt</systemitem> package. When invoked as <literal>apt-cache
showpkg <replaceable>package</replaceable></literal>, the program will show
details for <replaceable>package</replaceable>, including reverse depends.
-Other useful programs include <literal>apt-cache rdepends</literal>,
+Other useful programs include <command>apt-cache rdepends</command>,
<command>apt-rdepends</command>, <command>build-rdeps</command> (in the
<systemitem role="package">devscripts</systemitem> package) and
<command>grep-dctrl</command>. Removal of
code has evolved into another package (e.g. <literal>libfoo12</literal> was
removed because <literal>libfoo13</literal> supersedes it) or closed if the
software is simply no longer part of Debian.
+When closing the bugs,
+to avoid marking the bugs as fixed in versions of the packages
+in previous Debian releases, they should be marked as fixed
+in the version <literal><most-recent-version-ever-in-Debian>+rm</literal>.
</para>
<section id="s5.9.2.1">
<title>Removing packages from <filename>Incoming</filename></title>
you should follow a two-step process to rename it. In the first
step, change the <filename>debian/control</filename> file to
reflect the new name and to replace, provide and conflict with the
-obsolete package name (see the <ulink url="&url-debian-policy;">
-Debian Policy Manual</ulink> for details). Please note that you
+obsolete package name (see the <ulink url="&url-debian-policy;">Debian
+Policy Manual</ulink> for details). Please note that you
should only add a <literal>Provides</literal> relation if all
packages depending on the obsolete package name continue to work
after the renaming. Once you've uploaded the package and the package
-has moved into the archive, file a bug against <literal>
-ftp.debian.org</literal> asking to remove the package with the
+has moved into the archive, file a bug against <literal>ftp.debian.org</literal>
+asking to remove the package with the
obsolete name (see <xref linkend="removing-pkgs"/>). Do not forget
to properly reassign the package's bugs at the same time.
</para>
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
<filename>foo_1.00.orig.tar.gz</filename> with
-<filename>foo_1.00+0.orig.tar.gz</filename>. This restriction gives each file
-on the ftp site a unique name, which helps to ensure consistency across the
-mirror network.
+<filename>foo_1.00+0.orig.tar.gz</filename> or
+<filename>foo_1.00.orig.tar.bz2</filename>. This restriction gives each
+file on the ftp site a unique name, which helps to ensure consistency
+across the mirror network.
</para>
</section>
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 <xref linkend="mia-qa"/> .
+maintainer has gone AWOL (absent without leave), see <xref linkend="mia-qa"/>.
</para>
<para>
Generally, you may not take over the package without the assent of the current
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
-<literal>Maintainer:</literal> field, although it can take a few hours after
+<literal>Maintainer</literal> 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 <xref linkend="pkg-tracking-system"/> to get the bug reports.
However, make sure that the old maintainer has no problem with the fact that
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, when a maintainer
-uploads a (portable) source packages with binaries for the <literal>i386
-</literal> architecture, it will be built for each of the other architectures,
+uploads a (portable) source packages with binaries for the <literal>i386</literal>
+architecture, it will be built for each of the other architectures,
amounting to &number-of-arches; more builds.
</para>
<section id="kind-to-porters">
<filename>debian/control</filename> are set properly. The best way to validate
this is to use the <systemitem role="package">debootstrap</systemitem> package
to create an <literal>unstable</literal> chroot environment (see <xref
-linkend="debootstrap"/> ).
+linkend="debootstrap"/>).
Within that chrooted environment, install the <systemitem
role="package">build-essential</systemitem> package and any package
dependencies mentioned in <literal>Build-Depends</literal> and/or
<literal>Build-Depends-Indep</literal>. Finally, try building your package
within that chrooted environment. These steps can be automated by the use of
the <command>pbuilder</command> program which is provided by the package of the
-same name (see <xref linkend="pbuilder"/> ).
+same name (see <xref linkend="pbuilder"/>).
</para>
<para>
If you can't set up a proper chroot, <command>dpkg-depcheck</command> may be of
-assistance (see <xref linkend="dpkg-depcheck"/> ).
+assistance (see <xref linkend="dpkg-depcheck"/>).
</para>
<para>
See the <ulink url="&url-debian-policy;">Debian Policy
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-Don't set architecture to a value other than <literal>all</literal> or
+Don't set architecture to a value other than <literal>all</literal> or
<literal>any</literal> unless you really mean it. In too many cases,
-maintainers don't follow the instructions in the <ulink
+maintainers don't follow the instructions in the <ulink
url="&url-debian-policy;">Debian Policy Manual</ulink>. Setting your
architecture to only one architecture (such as <literal>i386</literal>
or <literal>amd64</literal>) is usually incorrect.
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-Make sure your debian/rules contains separate <literal>binary-arch</literal>
-and <literal>binary-indep</literal> targets, as the Debian Policy Manual
+Make sure your <filename>debian/rules</filename> contains separate <literal>binary-arch</literal>
+and <literal>binary-indep</literal> 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 <command>dpkg-buildpackage -B</command>.
-m<replaceable>porter-email</replaceable></literal>. Of course, set
<replaceable>porter-email</replaceable> to your email address. This will do a
binary-only build of only the architecture-dependent portions of the package,
-using the <literal>binary-arch</literal> target in <filename>debian/rules
-</filename>.
+using the <literal>binary-arch</literal> target in
+<filename>debian/rules</filename>.
</para>
<para>
If you are working on a Debian machine for your porting efforts and you need to
<para>
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
+bad compiler, etc.). 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
(<command>dak</command> refuses to install new packages if they don't have a
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 have inter-dependencies
-generated using dpkg's substitution variable <literal>$(Source-Version)
-</literal>.
+generated using dpkg's substitution variable <literal>$(Source-Version)</literal>.
</para>
<para>
Despite the required modification of the changelog, these are called
</para>
<para>
The ``magic'' for a recompilation-only NMU is triggered by using a suffix
-appended to the package version number, following the form <literal>
-b<replaceable>number</replaceable></literal>.
+appended to the package version number, following the form
+<literal>b<replaceable>number</replaceable></literal>.
For instance, if the latest version you are recompiling against was version
-<literal>2.9-3</literal>, your binary-only NMU should carry a version of
-<literal>2.9-3+b1</literal>. If the latest version was <literal>3.4+b1
-</literal> (i.e, a native package with a previous recompilation NMU), your
-binary-only NMU should have a version number of <literal>3.4+b2</literal>.
-<footnote><para> In the past, such NMUs used the third-level number on the
+<literal>2.9-3</literal>, your binary-only NMU should carry a version of
+<literal>2.9-3+b1</literal>. If the latest version was <literal>3.4+b1</literal>
+(i.e, a native package with a previous recompilation NMU), your
+binary-only NMU should have a version number of <literal>3.4+b2</literal>.<footnote><para>
+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
<title>When to do a source NMU if you are a porter</title>
<para>
Porters doing a source NMU generally follow the guidelines found in <xref
-linkend="nmu"/> , just like non-porters. However, it is expected that the wait
+linkend="nmu"/>, 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
release managers decide and announce which architectures are candidates.
</para>
<para>
-If you are a porter doing an NMU for <literal>unstable</literal>, the above
+If you are a porter doing an NMU for <literal>unstable</literal>, 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
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 <literal>stable</literal> or
-<literal>testing </literal>, please coordinate with the appropriate release
+<literal>testing</literal>, please coordinate with the appropriate release
team first.
</para>
<para>
Secondly, porters doing source NMUs should make sure that the bug they submit
to the BTS should be of severity <literal>serious</literal> or greater. This
-ensures that a single source package can be used to compile every supported
+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 architectures in order to
comply with many licenses.
<title>Porter tools</title>
<para>
Descriptions of several porting tools can be found in <xref
-linkend="tools-porting"/> .
+linkend="tools-porting"/>.
</para>
</section>
<para>
The <systemitem role="package">wanna-build</systemitem> system is used as a
distributed, client-server build distribution system. It is usually used in
-conjunction with build daemons running the <systemitem role="package">buildd
-</systemitem> program. <literal>Build daemons</literal> are ``slave'' hosts
-which contact the central <systemitem role="package"> wanna-build</systemitem>
+conjunction with build daemons running the <systemitem role="package">buildd</systemitem>
+program. <literal>Build daemons</literal> are ``slave'' hosts
+which contact the central <systemitem role="package">wanna-build</systemitem>
system to receive a list of packages that need to be built.
</para>
<para>
<systemitem role="package">wanna-build</systemitem> is not yet available as a
package; however, all Debian porting efforts are using it for automated
package building. The tool used to do the actual package builds, <systemitem
-role="package">sbuild</systemitem> is available as a package, see its
-description in <xref linkend="sbuild"/> . Please note that the packaged
+role="package">sbuild</systemitem> is available as a package, see its
+description in <xref linkend="sbuild"/>. Please note that the packaged
version is not the same as the one used on build daemons, but it is close
-enough to reproduce problems.
+enough to reproduce problems.
</para>
<para>
-Most of the data produced by <systemitem role="package">wanna-build
-</systemitem> which is generally useful to porters is available on the
+Most of the data produced by <systemitem role="package">wanna-build</systemitem>
+which is generally useful to porters is available on the
web at <ulink url="&url-buildd;"></ulink>. This data includes nightly
updated statistics, queueing information and logs for build attempts.
</para>
also enable Debian to recompile entire distributions quickly.
</para>
<para>
-The buildds admins of each arch can be contacted at the mail address
-<literal><replaceable>arch</replaceable>@buildd.debian.org</literal>.
+The wanna-build team, in charge of the buildds,
+can be reached at <literal>debian-wb-team@lists.debian.org</literal>.
+To determine who (wanna-build team, release team) and how (mail, BTS)
+to contact, refer to <ulink url="&url-wb-team;"></ulink>.
+</para>
+
+<para>
+When requesting binNMUs or give-backs (retries after a failed build),
+please use the format described at <ulink url="&url-release-wb;"/>.
</para>
+
</section>
</section>
<listitem>
<para>
In order to prevent autobuilders from needlessly trying to build your package,
-it must be included in <filename>packages-arch-specific</filename>, a list used
+it must be included in <filename>Packages-arch-specific</filename>, a list used
by the <command>wanna-build</command> script. The current version is available
-as <ulink
-url="&url-cvsweb;srcdep/Packages-arch-specific?cvsroot=dak"></ulink>;
+as <ulink url="&url-buildd-p-a-s;"/>;
please see the top of the file for whom to contact for changes.
</para>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>
<para>
Please note that it is insufficient to only add your package to
-Packages-arch-specific without making it fail to build on unsupported
+<filename>Packages-arch-specific</filename> 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 <systemitem
-role="package">ftp.debian.org</systemitem>
+role="package">ftp.debian.org</systemitem>.
</para>
</section>
When doing an NMU, you must first make sure that your intention to NMU is
clear. Then, you must send a patch with the differences between the
current package and your proposed NMU to the BTS. The
-<literal>nmudiff</literal> script in the <literal>devscripts</literal> package
+<command>nmudiff</command> script in the <systemitem role="package">devscripts</systemitem> package
might be helpful.
</para>
<para>
the burden of getting your changes integrated back in the normal package
workflow and thus increases the possibilities that that will happen. A good
place where to look for for possible package-specific practices is
-<ulink url="&url-debian-policy;ch-source.html#s-readmesource"><literal>debian/README.source</literal></ulink>.
+<ulink url="&url-debian-policy;ch-source.html#s-readmesource"><filename>debian/README.source</filename></ulink>.
</para>
<para>
Unless you have an excellent reason not to do so, you must then give some time
</section>
<section id="nmu-changelog">
-<title>NMUs and debian/changelog</title>
+<title>NMUs and <filename>debian/changelog</filename></title>
<para>
Just like any other (source) upload, NMUs must add an entry to
-<literal>debian/changelog</literal>, telling what has changed with this
+<filename>debian/changelog</filename>, telling what has changed with this
upload. The first line of this entry must explicitely mention that this upload is an NMU, e.g.:
</para>
<screen>
</screen>
<para>
-The version must be the version of the last maintainer upload, plus
+The way to version NMUs differs for native and non-native packages.
+</para>
+<para>
+If the package is a native package (without a Debian revision in the version number),
+the version must be the version of the last maintainer upload, plus
<literal>+nmu<replaceable>X</replaceable></literal>, where
-<replaceable>X</replaceable> is a counter starting at <literal>1</literal>. If
+<replaceable>X</replaceable> is a counter starting at <literal>1</literal>.
+If
the last upload was also an NMU, the counter should be increased. For example,
-if the current version is <literal>1.5-1</literal>, then an NMU would get
-version <literal>1.5-1+nmu1</literal>. If the current version is
-<literal>1.5+nmu3</literal> (a native package which has already been NMUed), the
-NMU would get version <literal>1.5+nmu4</literal>. If a new upstream version
-is packaged in the NMU, the debian revision is set to <literal>0</literal>, for
-example <literal>1.6-0+nmu1</literal>.
+if the current version is <literal>1.5</literal>, then an NMU would get
+version <literal>1.5+nmu1</literal>.
+</para>
+<para>
+If the package is a not a native package, you should add a minor version number
+to the Debian revision part of the version number (the portion after the last
+hyphen). This extra number must start at <literal>1</literal>. For example,
+if the current version is <literal>1.5-2</literal>, then an NMU would get
+version <literal>1.5-2.1</literal>. If a new upstream version
+is packaged in the NMU, the Debian revision is set to <literal>0</literal>, for
+example <literal>1.6-0.1</literal>.
+</para>
+<para>
+In both cases, if the last upload was also an NMU, the counter should
+be increased. For example, if the current version is
+<literal>1.5+nmu3</literal> (a native package which has already been
+NMUed), the NMU would get version <literal>1.5+nmu4</literal>.
</para>
-
<para>
A special versioning scheme is needed to avoid disrupting the maintainer's
work, since using an integer for the Debian revision will potentially
When the release number is not yet known (often the case for
<literal>testing</literal>, at the beginning of release cycles), the lowest
release number higher than the last stable release number must be used. For
-example, while Etch (Debian 4.0) is stable, a security NMU to stable for a
+example, while Lenny (Debian 5.0) is stable, a security NMU to stable for a
package at version <literal>1.5-3</literal> would have version
-<literal>1.5-3+deb40u1</literal>, whereas a security NMU to Lenny would get
-version <literal>1.5-3+deb50u1</literal>. After the release of Lenny, security
+<literal>1.5-3+deb50u1</literal>, whereas a security NMU to Squeeze would get
+version <literal>1.5-3+deb60u1</literal>. After the release of Squeeze, security
uploads to the <literal>testing</literal> distribution will be versioned
-<literal>+deb51uZ</literal>, until it is known whether that release will be
-Debian 5.1 or Debian 6.0 (if that becomes the case, uploads will be versioned
-as <literal>+deb60uZ</literal>.
+<literal>+deb61uZ</literal>, until it is known whether that release will be
+Debian 6.1 or Debian 7.0 (if that becomes the case, uploads will be versioned
+as <literal>+deb70uZ</literal>).
</para>
</section>
<para>
BinNMUs are usually triggered on the buildds by wanna-build.
-An entry is added to debian/changelog,
+An entry is added to <filename>debian/changelog</filename>,
explaining why the upload was needed and increasing the version number as
described in <xref linkend="binary-only-nmu"/>.
This entry should not be included in the next upload.
<para>
Buildds upload packages for their architecture to the archive as binary-only
uploads. Strictly speaking, these are binNMUs. However, they are not normally
-called NMU, and they don't add an entry to debian/changelog.
+called NMU, and they don't add an entry to <filename>debian/changelog</filename>.
</para>
</section>
<para>
QA uploads are very much like normal maintainer uploads: they may fix anything,
even minor issues; the version numbering is normal, and there is no need to use
-a delayed upload. The difference is that you are not listed as the Maintainer
-or Uploader for the package. Also, the changelog entry of a QA upload has a
+a delayed upload. The difference is that you are not listed as the <literal>Maintainer</literal>
+or <literal>Uploader</literal> for the package. Also, the changelog entry of a QA upload has a
special first line:
</para>
</section>
+<section id="nmu-team-upload">
+<title>NMUs vs team uploads</title>
+
+<para>
+Sometimes you are fixing and/or updating a package because you are member of a
+packaging team (which uses a mailing list as <literal>Maintainer</literal> or <literal>Uploader</literal>, see <xref
+linkend="collaborative-maint"/>) but you don't want to add yourself to <literal>Uploaders</literal>
+because you do not plan to contribute regularly to this specific package. If it
+conforms with your team's policy, you can perform a normal upload without
+being listed directly as <literal>Maintainer</literal> or <literal>Uploader</literal>. In that case, you should
+start your changelog entry with the following line:
+</para>
+
+<screen>
+ * Team upload.
+</screen>
+
+</section>
+
</section>
<section id="collaborative-maint">
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
-<literal>Standard</literal> or which are part of the base set have
+<literal>standard</literal> or which are part of the base set have
co-maintainers.
</para>
<para>
<para>
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 <command>CVS</command> or <command>Subversion</command>. Alioth (see
-<xref linkend="alioth"/> ) provides such tools, amongst others.
+such as <literal>CVS</literal> or <literal>Subversion</literal>. Alioth (see
+<xref linkend="alioth"/>) provides such tools, amongst others.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-Using the PTS (<xref linkend="pkg-tracking-system"/> ), the co-maintainers
+Using the PTS (<xref linkend="pkg-tracking-system"/>), the co-maintainers
should subscribe themselves to the appropriate source package.
</para>
</listitem>
<para>
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
+In that case, the <literal>Maintainer</literal> and <literal>Uploaders</literal> field of each package must be
managed with care. It is recommended to choose between one of the two
following schemes:
</para>
<orderedlist numeration="arabic">
<listitem>
<para>
-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
+Put the team member mainly responsible for the package in the <literal>Maintainer</literal> field.
+In the <literal>Uploaders</literal>, put the mailing list address, and the team members who care
for the package.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-Put the mailing list address in the Maintainer field. In the Uploaders field,
+Put the mailing list address in the <literal>Maintainer</literal> field. In the <literal>Uploaders</literal> 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).
</para>
</listitem>
</orderedlist>
+
<para>
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
-<xref linkend="ddpo"/> ) with packages one doesn't really care for, and creates
-a false sense of good maintenance.
+<literal>Uploaders</literal> field. It clutters the Developer's Package Overview listing (see
+<xref linkend="ddpo"/>) with packages one doesn't really care for, and creates
+a false sense of good maintenance. For the same reason, team members do
+not need to add themselves to the <literal>Uploaders</literal> field just because they are
+uploading the package once, they can do a “Team upload” (see <xref
+linkend="nmu-team-upload"/>). Conversely, it is a bad idea to keep a
+package with only the mailing list address as a <literal>Maintainer</literal> and no
+<literal>Uploaders</literal>.
</para>
</section>
<para>
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 <literal>testing
-</literal>. This way, <literal>testing</literal> should always be close to
+release-critical bugs at the time they're installed into <literal>testing</literal>.
+This way, <literal>testing</literal> should always be close to
being a release candidate. Please see below for details.
</para>
</section>
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 <literal>testing</literal> transition is taken into account. Those
-delays may be doubled during a freeze, or <literal>testing</literal>
+delays may be doubled during a freeze, or <literal>testing</literal>
transitions may be switched off altogether;
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
It must not have new release-critical bugs (RC bugs affecting the version
-available in <literal>unstable</literal>, but not affecting the version in
+available in <literal>unstable</literal>, but not affecting the version in
<literal>testing</literal>);
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
It must be available on all architectures on which it has previously been built
-in <literal>unstable</literal>. <xref linkend="dak-ls"/> may be of interest
+in <literal>unstable</literal>. <link linkend="dak-ls">dak ls</link> may be of interest
to check that information;
</para>
</listitem>
The packages on which it depends must either be available in
<literal>testing</literal> or they must be accepted into
<literal>testing</literal> at the same time (and they will be if they fulfill
-all the necessary criteria);
+all the necessary criteria).
</para>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>
shows build dependencies which are not considered by britney.
</para>
<section id="outdated">
-<title>out-of-date</title>
+<title>Out-of-date</title>
<para>
<!-- FIXME: better rename this file than document rampant professionalism? -->
For the <literal>testing</literal> migration script, outdated means: There are
different versions in <literal>unstable</literal> for the release architectures
(except for the architectures in fuckedarches; fuckedarches is a list of
architectures that don't keep up (in <filename>update_out.py</filename>), but
-currently, it's empty). outdated has nothing whatsoever to do with the
+currently, it's empty). outdated has nothing whatsoever to do with the
architectures this package has in <literal>testing</literal>.
</para>
<para>
</tgroup>
</informaltable>
<para>
-The package is out of date on alpha in <literal>unstable</literal>, and will
+The package is out of date on <literal>alpha</literal> in <literal>unstable</literal>, and will
not go to <literal>testing</literal>. Removing the package would not help at all, the
-package is still out of date on <literal>alpha</literal>, and will not
-propagate to testing.
+package is still out of date on <literal>alpha</literal>, and will not
+propagate to <literal>testing</literal>.
</para>
<para>
However, if ftp-master removes a package in <literal>unstable</literal> (here
</informaltable>
<para>
In this case, the package is up to date on all release architectures in
-<literal>unstable</literal> (and the extra <literal>hurd-i386</literal>
+<literal>unstable</literal> (and the extra <literal>hurd-i386</literal>
doesn't matter, as it's not a release architecture).
</para>
<para>
be removed to allow <literal>b</literal> in.
</para>
<para>
-Of course, there is another reason to remove a package from <literal>testing
-</literal>: It's just too buggy (and having a single RC-bug is enough to be
+Of course, there is another reason to remove a package from <literal>testing</literal>:
+It's just too buggy (and having a single RC-bug is enough to be
in this state).
</para>
<para>
</section>
<section id="circular">
-<title>circular dependencies</title>
+<title>Circular dependencies</title>
<para>
A situation which is not handled very well by britney is if package
<literal>a</literal> depends on the new version of package
</section>
<section id="s5.13.2.4">
-<title>influence of package in testing</title>
+<title>Influence of package in testing</title>
<para>
-Generally, there is nothing that the status of a package in <literal>testing
-</literal> means for transition of the next version from <literal>unstable
-</literal> to <literal>testing</literal>, with two exceptions:
+Generally, there is nothing that the status of a package in <literal>testing</literal>
+means for transition of the next version from <literal>unstable</literal>
+to <literal>testing</literal>, 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 <literal>
-testing</literal> is out of sync on the different arches: Then any arch might
+RC-buggy. The second exception is if the version of the package in
+<literal>testing</literal> 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 <literal>unstable
-</literal> at all during the <literal>testing</literal> migration.
+or there was no binary package of that arch present in <literal>unstable</literal>
+at all during the <literal>testing</literal> migration.
</para>
<para>
-In summary this means: The only influence that a package being in <literal>
-testing</literal> has on a new version of the same package is that the new
+In summary this means: The only influence that a package being in
+<literal>testing</literal> has on a new version of the same package is that the new
version might go in easier.
</para>
</section>
<section id="details">
-<title>details</title>
+<title>Details</title>
<para>
If you are interested in details, this is how britney works:
</para>
is not described here. If you're interested in that, please peruse the code.)
</para>
<para>
-Now, the more complex part happens: Britney tries to update <literal>testing
-</literal> with the valid candidates. For that, britney tries to add each
+Now, the more complex part happens: Britney tries to update <literal>testing</literal>
+with the valid candidates. For that, britney tries to add each
valid candidate to the testing distribution. If the number of uninstallable
packages in <literal>testing</literal> doesn't increase, the package is
accepted. From that point on, the accepted package is considered to be part
<filename>merkel:/org/&ftp-debian-org;/testing/update_out/</filename> (or
in <filename>merkel:~aba/testing/update_out</filename> to see a setup with
a smaller packages file). Via web, it's at <ulink
-url="http://&ftp-master-host;/testing/update_out_code/"></ulink>
+url="http://&ftp-master-host;/testing/update_out_code/"></ulink>.
</para>
<para>
The hints are available via <ulink
<section id="t-p-u">
<title>Direct updates to testing</title>
<para>
-The <literal>testing</literal> distribution is fed with packages from
+The <literal>testing</literal> distribution is fed with packages from
<literal>unstable</literal> according to the rules explained above. However,
-in some cases, it is necessary to upload packages built only for <literal>
-testing</literal>. For that, you may want to upload to <literal>
-testing-proposed-updates</literal>.
+in some cases, it is necessary to upload packages built only for
+<literal>testing</literal>. For that, you may want to upload to
+<literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal>.
</para>
<para>
Keep in mind that packages uploaded there are not automatically processed, they
<para>
You should not upload to <literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal> when you
can update your packages through <literal>unstable</literal>. If you can't
-(for example because you have a newer development version in <literal>unstable
-</literal>), you may use this facility, but it is recommended that you ask for
+(for example because you have a newer development version in <literal>unstable</literal>),
+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 <literal>unstable</literal> are possible, if the upload via
<literal>unstable</literal> does not pull in any new dependencies.
</para>
<para>
-Version numbers are usually selected by adding the codename of the
-<literal>testing</literal> distribution and a running number, like
-<literal>1.2sarge1</literal> for the first upload through
-<literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal> of package version
+Version numbers are usually selected by adding the codename of the
+<literal>testing</literal> distribution and a running number, like
+<literal>1.2squeeze1</literal> for the first upload through
+<literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal> of package version
<literal>1.2</literal>.
</para>
<para>
<listitem>
<para>
Make sure that your package really needs to go through
-<literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal>, and can't go through <literal>
-unstable</literal>;
+<literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal>, and can't go through
+<literal>unstable</literal>;
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
Such bugs are presumed to have an impact on the chances that the package will
be released with the <literal>stable</literal> release of Debian: in general,
-if a package has open release-critical bugs filed on it, it won't get into
-<literal>testing</literal>, and consequently won't be released in <literal>
-stable</literal>.
+if a package has open release-critical bugs filed on it, it won't get into
+<literal>testing</literal>, and consequently won't be released in
+<literal>stable</literal>.
</para>
<para>
The <literal>unstable</literal> bug count are all release-critical bugs which
-are marked to apply to <replaceable>package</replaceable>/<replaceable>version
-</replaceable> combinations that are available in unstable for a release
+are marked to apply to <replaceable>package</replaceable>/<replaceable>version</replaceable>
+combinations that are available in unstable for a release
architecture. The <literal>testing</literal> bug count is defined analogously.
</para>
</section>
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 <literal>acmefoo</literal> is installed into <literal>testing</literal>,
-along with its binary packages <literal>acme-foo-bin</literal>, <literal>
-acme-bar-bin</literal>, <literal>libacme-foo1</literal> and <literal>
-libacme-foo-dev</literal>, the old version is removed.
+along with its binary packages <literal>acme-foo-bin</literal>,
+<literal>acme-bar-bin</literal>, <literal>libacme-foo1</literal> and
+<literal>libacme-foo-dev</literal>, the old version is removed.
</para>
<para>
However, the old version may have provided a binary package with an old soname
-of a library, such as <literal>libacme-foo0</literal>. Removing the old
+of a library, such as <literal>libacme-foo0</literal>. Removing the old
<literal>acmefoo</literal> will remove <literal>libacme-foo0</literal>, which
will break any packages which depend on it.
</para>