X-Git-Url: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~ianmdlvl/git?a=blobdiff_plain;f=pkgs.dbk;h=86d9273e90783fe8d7f407cdbd262d614e105ba6;hb=c69a5d3729af03e4e1cb87f0033c54610dd340ef;hp=759bb480c366f45b883e938b75357480a6ec5e7f;hpb=02e06b1f54f23749a279f26a0fd9b612423107e0;p=developers-reference.git
diff --git a/pkgs.dbk b/pkgs.dbk
index 759bb48..86d9273 100644
--- a/pkgs.dbk
+++ b/pkgs.dbk
@@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ It is conventional that the changelog entry of a package that contains a new
upstream version of the software looks like this:
- * new upstream version
+ * New upstream release.
There are tools to help you create entries and finalize the
@@ -230,12 +230,12 @@ accompanied by another file that contains the changes made by Debian
For the native packages, the source package includes a Debian source control
-file (.dsc) and the source tarball
-(.tar.{gz,bz2,lzma}). A source package of a non-native package
+file (.dsc) and the source tarball
+(.tar.{gz,bz2,lzma}). A source package of a non-native package
includes a Debian source control file, the original source tarball
-(.orig.tar.{gz,bz2,lzma}) and the Debian changes
-(.diff.gz for the source format â1.0â or
-.debian.tar.{gz,bz2,lzma} for the source format â3.0 (quilt)â).
+(.orig.tar.{gz,bz2,lzma}) and the Debian changes
+(.diff.gz for the source format â1.0â or
+.debian.tar.{gz,bz2,lzma} for the source format â3.0 (quilt)â).
With source format â1.0â, whether a package is native or not was determined
@@ -268,7 +268,7 @@ the archive.
Please notice that, in non-native packages, permissions on files that are not
-present in the .orig.tar.{gz,bz2,lzma} will not be preserved, as diff does not store file
+present in the *.orig.tar.{gz,bz2,lzma} will not be preserved, as diff does not store file
permissions in the patch. However when using source format â3.0 (quilt)â,
permissions of files inside the debian directory are
preserved since they are stored in a tar archive.
@@ -962,7 +962,7 @@ be sure to mention this fact.
Please note that if secrecy is needed you may not upload a fix to
unstable (or
-anywhere else, such as a public CVS repository). It is not sufficient to
+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.
@@ -1278,8 +1278,8 @@ short summary of the reason for the removal request.
[architecture list] is optional and only needed
if the removal request only applies to some architectures, not all. Note
that the reportbug will create a title conforming
-to these rules when you use it to report a bug against the
-ftp.debian.org pseudo-package.
+to these rules when you use it to report a bug against the
+ftp.debian.org pseudo-package.
@@ -1292,13 +1292,13 @@ pending removal requests.
-Note that removals can only be done for the unstable
-, experimental and stable
- distribution. Packages are not removed from
+Note that removals can only be done for the unstable,
+experimental and stable
+distribution. Packages are not removed from
testing directly. Rather, they will be removed
automatically after the package has been removed from
-unstable and no package in testing
- depends on it.
+unstable and no package in
+testing depends on it.
There is one exception when an explicit removal request is not necessary: If a
@@ -1337,7 +1337,7 @@ the apt-cache program from the apt package. When invoked as apt-cache
showpkg package, the program will show
details for package, including reverse depends.
-Other useful programs include apt-cache rdepends,
+Other useful programs include apt-cache rdepends,
apt-rdepends, build-rdeps (in the
devscripts package) and
grep-dctrl. Removal of
@@ -1379,13 +1379,13 @@ rename their software (or you made a mistake naming your package),
you should follow a two-step process to rename it. In the first
step, change the debian/control file to
reflect the new name and to replace, provide and conflict with the
-obsolete package name (see the
-Debian Policy Manual for details). Please note that you
+obsolete package name (see the Debian
+Policy Manual for details). Please note that you
should only add a Provides 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
-ftp.debian.org asking to remove the package with the
+has moved into the archive, file a bug against ftp.debian.org
+asking to remove the package with the
obsolete name (see ). Do not forget
to properly reassign the package's bugs at the same time.
@@ -1464,7 +1464,7 @@ more information).
If you take over an old package, you probably want to be listed as the
package's official maintainer in the bug system. This will happen
automatically once you upload a new version with an updated
-Maintainer: field, although it can take a few hours after
+Maintainer field, although it can take a few hours after
the upload is done. If you do not expect to upload a new version for a while,
you can use to get the bug reports.
However, make sure that the old maintainer has no problem with the fact that
@@ -1487,8 +1487,8 @@ Porting is the act of building Debian packages for architectures that are
different from the original architecture of the package maintainer's binary
package. It is a unique and essential activity. In fact, porters do most of
the actual compiling of Debian packages. For instance, when a maintainer
-uploads a (portable) source packages with binaries for the i386
- architecture, it will be built for each of the other architectures,
+uploads a (portable) source packages with binaries for the i386
+architecture, it will be built for each of the other architectures,
amounting to &number-of-arches; more builds.
@@ -1592,7 +1592,7 @@ standardize on different compilers.
-Make sure your debian/rules contains separate binary-arch
+Make sure your debian/rules contains separate binary-arch
and binary-indep targets, as the Debian Policy Manual
requires. Make sure that both targets work independently, that is, that you
can call the target without having called the other before. To test this,
@@ -1623,8 +1623,8 @@ The way to invoke dpkg-buildpackage is as
-mporter-email. Of course, set
porter-email to your email address. This will do a
binary-only build of only the architecture-dependent portions of the package,
-using the binary-arch target in debian/rules
-.
+using the binary-arch target in
+debian/rules.
If you are working on a Debian machine for your porting efforts and you need to
@@ -1648,8 +1648,7 @@ version number greater than the currently available one).
You have to make sure that your binary-only NMU doesn't render the package
uninstallable. This could happen when a source package generates
arch-dependent and arch-independent packages that have inter-dependencies
-generated using dpkg's substitution variable $(Source-Version)
-.
+generated using dpkg's substitution variable $(Source-Version).
Despite the required modification of the changelog, these are called
@@ -1665,14 +1664,14 @@ source code).
The ``magic'' for a recompilation-only NMU is triggered by using a suffix
-appended to the package version number, following the form
-bnumber.
+appended to the package version number, following the form
+bnumber.
For instance, if the latest version you are recompiling against was version
2.9-3, your binary-only NMU should carry a version of
-2.9-3+b1. If the latest version was 3.4+b1
- (i.e, a native package with a previous recompilation NMU), your
-binary-only NMU should have a version number of 3.4+b2.
- In the past, such NMUs used the third-level number on the
+2.9-3+b1. If the latest version was 3.4+b1
+(i.e, a native package with a previous recompilation NMU), your
+binary-only NMU should have a version number of 3.4+b2.
+In the past, such NMUs used the third-level number on the
Debian part of the revision to denote their recompilation-only status;
however, this syntax was ambiguous with native packages and did not allow
proper ordering of recompile-only NMUs, source NMUs, and security NMUs on
@@ -1690,7 +1689,7 @@ to only build the architecture-dependent parts of the package.
When to do a source NMU if you are a porter
Porters doing a source NMU generally follow the guidelines found in , just like non-porters. However, it is expected that the wait
+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
@@ -1706,7 +1705,7 @@ on the unstable distribution. This period can be shortened
if the problem is critical and imposes hardship on the porting effort, at the
discretion of the porter group. (Remember, none of this is Policy, just
mutually agreed upon guidelines.) For uploads to stable or
-testing , please coordinate with the appropriate release
+testing, please coordinate with the appropriate release
team first.
@@ -1769,9 +1768,9 @@ linkend="tools-porting"/>.
The wanna-build system is used as a
distributed, client-server build distribution system. It is usually used in
-conjunction with build daemons running the buildd
- program. Build daemons are ``slave'' hosts
-which contact the central wanna-build
+conjunction with build daemons running the buildd
+program. Build daemons are ``slave'' hosts
+which contact the central wanna-build
system to receive a list of packages that need to be built.
@@ -1784,8 +1783,8 @@ version is not the same as the one used on build daemons, but it is close
enough to reproduce problems.
-Most of the data produced by wanna-build
- which is generally useful to porters is available on the
+Most of the data produced by wanna-build
+which is generally useful to porters is available on the
web at . This data includes nightly
updated statistics, queueing information and logs for build attempts.
@@ -1845,7 +1844,7 @@ fail also, and indicate this to a human reader without actually trying.
In order to prevent autobuilders from needlessly trying to build your package,
-it must be included in packages-arch-specific, a list used
+it must be included in Packages-arch-specific, a list used
by the wanna-build script. The current version is available
as ;
please see the top of the file for whom to contact for changes.
@@ -1854,12 +1853,12 @@ please see the top of the file for whom to contact for changes.
Please note that it is insufficient to only add your package to
-Packages-arch-specific without making it fail to build on unsupported
+Packages-arch-specific without making it fail to build on unsupported
architectures: A porter or any other person trying to build your package might
accidently upload it without noticing it doesn't work. If in the past some
binary packages were uploaded on unsupported architectures, request their
removal by filing a bug against ftp.debian.org
+role="package">ftp.debian.org.
@@ -1928,7 +1927,7 @@ is given an opportunity to upload a fix on their own.
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
-nmudiff script in the devscripts package
+nmudiff script in the devscripts package
might be helpful.
@@ -1937,7 +1936,7 @@ practices that the maintainer might be using. Taking them into account reduces
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
-debian/README.source.
+debian/README.source.
Unless you have an excellent reason not to do so, you must then give some time
@@ -1995,10 +1994,10 @@ defend the wisdom of any NMU you perform on its own merits.
-NMUs and debian/changelog
+NMUs and debian/changelog
Just like any other (source) upload, NMUs must add an entry to
-debian/changelog, telling what has changed with this
+debian/changelog, telling what has changed with this
upload. The first line of this entry must explicitely mention that this upload is an NMU, e.g.:
@@ -2009,7 +2008,7 @@ upload. The first line of this entry must explicitely mention that this upload
The way to version NMUs differs for native and non-native packages.
-If the package is a native package (without a debian revision in the version number),
+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
+nmuX, where
X is a counter starting at 1.
@@ -2020,11 +2019,11 @@ version 1.5+nmu1.
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 1. For example,
+to the Debian revision part of the version number (the portion after the last
+hyphen). This extra number must start at 1. For example,
if the current version is 1.5-2, then an NMU would get
version 1.5-2.1. If a new upstream version
-is packaged in the NMU, the debian revision is set to 0, for
+is packaged in the NMU, the Debian revision is set to 0, for
example 1.6-0.1.
@@ -2054,14 +2053,14 @@ should be used, where X and
When the release number is not yet known (often the case for
testing, 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 1.5-3 would have version
-1.5-3+deb40u1, whereas a security NMU to Lenny would get
-version 1.5-3+deb50u1. After the release of Lenny, security
+1.5-3+deb50u1, whereas a security NMU to Squeeze would get
+version 1.5-3+deb60u1. After the release of Squeeze, security
uploads to the testing distribution will be versioned
-+deb51uZ, 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 +deb60uZ.
++deb61uZ, 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 +deb70uZ).
@@ -2138,7 +2137,7 @@ package is used.
BinNMUs are usually triggered on the buildds by wanna-build.
-An entry is added to debian/changelog,
+An entry is added to debian/changelog,
explaining why the upload was needed and increasing the version number as
described in .
This entry should not be included in the next upload.
@@ -2147,7 +2146,7 @@ This entry should not be included in the next upload.
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 debian/changelog.
@@ -2165,8 +2164,8 @@ uploads are uploads of orphaned packages.
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 Maintainer
+or Uploader for the package. Also, the changelog entry of a QA upload has a
special first line:
@@ -2199,14 +2198,18 @@ the new version (see ).
Sometimes you are fixing and/or updating a package because you are member of a
-packaging team (which uses a mailing list as Maintainer or Uploader, see ) but you don't want to add yourself to Uploaders
+packaging team (which uses a mailing list as Maintainer or Uploader, see ) but you don't want to add yourself to Uploaders
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 Maintainer or Uploader. In that case, you should
-start your changelog entry with the following line: * Team upload..
+being listed directly as Maintainer or Uploader. In that case, you should
+start your changelog entry with the following line:
+
+ * Team upload.
+
+
@@ -2218,7 +2221,7 @@ Collaborative maintenance is a term describing the sharing of Debian package
maintenance duties by several people. This collaboration is almost always a
good idea, since it generally results in higher quality and faster bug fix
turnaround times. It is strongly recommended that packages with a priority of
-Standard or which are part of the base set have
+standard or which are part of the base set have
co-maintainers.
@@ -2238,7 +2241,7 @@ easy:
Setup the co-maintainer with access to the sources you build the package from.
Generally this implies you are using a network-capable version control system,
-such as CVS or Subversion. Alioth (see
+such as CVS or Subversion. Alioth (see
) provides such tools, amongst others.
@@ -2262,21 +2265,21 @@ should subscribe themselves to the appropriate source package.
Another form of collaborative maintenance is team maintenance, which is
recommended if you maintain several packages with the same group of developers.
-In that case, the Maintainer and Uploaders field of each package must be
+In that case, the Maintainer and Uploaders field of each package must be
managed with care. It is recommended to choose between one of the two
following schemes:
-Put the team member mainly responsible for the package in the Maintainer field.
-In the Uploaders, put the mailing list address, and the team members who care
+Put the team member mainly responsible for the package in the Maintainer field.
+In the Uploaders, put the mailing list address, and the team members who care
for the package.
-Put the mailing list address in the Maintainer field. In the Uploaders field,
+Put the mailing list address in the Maintainer field. In the Uploaders field,
put the team members who care for the package. In this case, you must make
sure the mailing list accept bug reports without any human interaction (like
moderation for non-subscribers).
@@ -2286,14 +2289,14 @@ moderation for non-subscribers).
In any case, it is a bad idea to automatically put all team members in the
-Uploaders field. It clutters the Developer's Package Overview listing (see
+Uploaders field. It clutters the Developer's Package Overview listing (see
) with packages one doesn't really care for, and creates
a false sense of good maintenance. For the same reason, team members do
-not need to add themselves to the Uploaders field just because they are
+not need to add themselves to the Uploaders field just because they are
uploading the package once, they can do a âTeam uploadâ (see ). Conversely, it it a bad idea to keep a
-package with only the mailing list address as a Maintainer and no
-Uploaders.
+package with only the mailing list address as a Maintainer and no
+Uploaders.
@@ -2309,8 +2312,8 @@ after they have undergone some degree of testing in
They must be in sync on all architectures and mustn't have dependencies that
make them uninstallable; they also have to have generally no known
-release-critical bugs at the time they're installed into testing
-. This way, testing should always be close to
+release-critical bugs at the time they're installed into testing.
+This way, testing should always be close to
being a release candidate. Please see below for details.
@@ -2350,7 +2353,7 @@ available in unstable, but not affecting the version in
It must be available on all architectures on which it has previously been built
-in unstable. may be of interest
+in unstable. dak ls may be of interest
to check that information;
@@ -2365,7 +2368,7 @@ It must not break any dependency of a package which is already available in
The packages on which it depends must either be available in
testing or they must be accepted into
testing at the same time (and they will be if they fulfill
-all the necessary criteria);
+all the necessary criteria).
@@ -2398,7 +2401,7 @@ url="http://release.debian.org/migration/"> â but be warned, this page
shows build dependencies which are not considered by britney.
-out-of-date
+Out-of-date
For the testing migration script, outdated means: There are
@@ -2435,10 +2438,10 @@ Consider this example:
-The package is out of date on alpha in unstable, and will
+The package is out of date on alpha in unstable, and will
not go to testing. Removing the package would not help at all, the
package is still out of date on alpha, and will not
-propagate to testing.
+propagate to testing.
However, if ftp-master removes a package in unstable (here
@@ -2492,8 +2495,8 @@ with the new version of b; then a may
be removed to allow b in.
-Of course, there is another reason to remove a package from testing
-: It's just too buggy (and having a single RC-bug is enough to be
+Of course, there is another reason to remove a package from testing:
+It's just too buggy (and having a single RC-bug is enough to be
in this state).
@@ -2504,7 +2507,7 @@ will automatically be removed.
-circular dependencies
+Circular dependencies
A situation which is not handled very well by britney is if package
a depends on the new version of package
@@ -2548,28 +2551,28 @@ happens to one of your packages.
-influence of package in testing
+Influence of package in testing
-Generally, there is nothing that the status of a package in testing
- means for transition of the next version from unstable
- to testing, with two exceptions:
+Generally, there is nothing that the status of a package in testing
+means for transition of the next version from unstable
+to testing, with two exceptions:
If the RC-bugginess of the package goes down, it may go in even if it is still
-RC-buggy. The second exception is if the version of the package in
-testing is out of sync on the different arches: Then any arch might
+RC-buggy. The second exception is if the version of the package in
+testing is out of sync on the different arches: Then any arch might
just upgrade to the version of the source package; however, this can happen
only if the package was previously forced through, the arch is in fuckedarches,
-or there was no binary package of that arch present in unstable
- at all during the testing migration.
+or there was no binary package of that arch present in unstable
+at all during the testing migration.
-In summary this means: The only influence that a package being in
-testing has on a new version of the same package is that the new
+In summary this means: The only influence that a package being in
+testing has on a new version of the same package is that the new
version might go in easier.
-details
+Details
If you are interested in details, this is how britney works:
@@ -2583,8 +2586,8 @@ part of britney.) (There is a similar thing for binary-only updates, but this
is not described here. If you're interested in that, please peruse the code.)
-Now, the more complex part happens: Britney tries to update testing
- with the valid candidates. For that, britney tries to add each
+Now, the more complex part happens: Britney tries to update testing
+with the valid candidates. For that, britney tries to add each
valid candidate to the testing distribution. If the number of uninstallable
packages in testing doesn't increase, the package is
accepted. From that point on, the accepted package is considered to be part
@@ -2597,7 +2600,7 @@ If you want to see more details, you can look it up on
merkel:/org/&ftp-debian-org;/testing/update_out/ (or
in merkel:~aba/testing/update_out to see a setup with
a smaller packages file). Via web, it's at
+url="http://&ftp-master-host;/testing/update_out_code/">.
The hints are available via .
The testing distribution is fed with packages from
unstable according to the rules explained above. However,
-in some cases, it is necessary to upload packages built only for
-testing. For that, you may want to upload to
-testing-proposed-updates.
+in some cases, it is necessary to upload packages built only for
+testing. For that, you may want to upload to
+testing-proposed-updates.
Keep in mind that packages uploaded there are not automatically processed, they
@@ -2626,8 +2629,8 @@ give on &email-debian-devel-announce;.
You should not upload to testing-proposed-updates when you
can update your packages through unstable. If you can't
-(for example because you have a newer development version in unstable
-), you may use this facility, but it is recommended that you ask for
+(for example because you have a newer development version in unstable),
+you may use this facility, but it is recommended that you ask for
authorization from the release manager first. Even if a package is frozen,
updates through unstable are possible, if the upload via
unstable does not pull in any new dependencies.
@@ -2635,7 +2638,7 @@ updates through unstable are possible, if the upload via
Version numbers are usually selected by adding the codename of the
testing distribution and a running number, like
-1.2sarge1 for the first upload through
+1.2squeeze1 for the first upload through
testing-proposed-updates of package version
1.2.
@@ -2646,8 +2649,8 @@ Please make sure you didn't miss any of these items in your upload:
Make sure that your package really needs to go through
-testing-proposed-updates, and can't go through
-unstable;
+testing-proposed-updates, and can't go through
+unstable;
@@ -2701,13 +2704,13 @@ currently, these are critical, grave and
Such bugs are presumed to have an impact on the chances that the package will
be released with the stable release of Debian: in general,
if a package has open release-critical bugs filed on it, it won't get into
-testing, and consequently won't be released in
-stable.
+testing, and consequently won't be released in
+stable.
The unstable bug count are all release-critical bugs which
-are marked to apply to package/version
- combinations that are available in unstable for a release
+are marked to apply to package/version
+combinations that are available in unstable for a release
architecture. The testing bug count is defined analogously.
@@ -2719,9 +2722,9 @@ break other packages?
The structure of the distribution archives is such that they can only contain
one version of a package; a package is defined by its name. So when the source
package acmefoo is installed into testing,
-along with its binary packages acme-foo-bin,
-acme-bar-bin, libacme-foo1 and
-libacme-foo-dev, the old version is removed.
+along with its binary packages acme-foo-bin,
+acme-bar-bin, libacme-foo1 and
+libacme-foo-dev, the old version is removed.
However, the old version may have provided a binary package with an old soname