X-Git-Url: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~ianmdlvl/git?a=blobdiff_plain;f=pkgs.dbk;h=8f1f36b9cd1928e497af1ffbc5e1afcd372d2d29;hb=e81cdebedab690ef881d87af6f533e51c026565c;hp=5494ef6c80e8649b98e4a8eb20e3f5405b14800b;hpb=d80318035daccc476d53332cd904630b36147977;p=developers-reference.git diff --git a/pkgs.dbk b/pkgs.dbk index 5494ef6..8f1f36b 100644 --- a/pkgs.dbk +++ b/pkgs.dbk @@ -28,14 +28,18 @@ description of the package, the license of the prospective package, and the current URL where it can be downloaded from. -You should set the subject of the bug to ``ITP: foo --- short description'', substituting the name of the -new package for foo. The severity of the bug report -must be set to wishlist. If you feel it's necessary, send -a copy to &email-debian-devel; by putting the address in the -X-Debbugs-CC: header of the message (no, don't use -CC:, because that way the message's subject won't indicate -the bug number). +You should set the subject of the bug to ITP: +foo -- short +description, substituting the name of the new +package for foo. +The severity of the bug report must be set to wishlist. +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. +This will inform the other developers about upcoming packages and will +allow a review of your description and package name. Please include a Closes: @@ -270,7 +274,7 @@ The package build process extracts this information from the first line of the There are several possible values for this field: stable, -unstable, testing-proposed-updates and +unstable, testing-proposed-updates and experimental. Normally, packages are uploaded into unstable. @@ -284,16 +288,25 @@ It is not possible to upload a package into several distributions at the same time.
-Special case: uploads to the <literal>stable</literal> distribution +Special case: uploads to the <literal>stable</literal> and +<literal>oldstable</literal> distributions Uploading to stable means that the package will transfered -to the proposed-updates-new-queue for review by the stable +to the proposed-updates-new queue for review by the stable release managers, and if approved will be installed in stable-proposed-updates directory of the Debian archive. From there, it will be included in stable with the next point release. +To ensure that your upload will be accepted, you should discuss the changes +with the stable release team before you upload. For that, send a mail to +the &email-debian-release; mailing list, including the patch you want to +apply to the package version currently in stable. Always +be verbose and detailed in your changelog entries for uploads to the +stable distribution. + + Extra care should be taken when uploading to stable. Basically, a package should only be uploaded to stable if one of the following happens: @@ -321,7 +334,10 @@ security problems as well. However, this practice is deprecated, as uploads used for Debian security advisories are automatically copied to the appropriate proposed-updates archive when the advisory is released. See for detailed information on handling -security problems. +security problems. If the security teams deems the problem to be too +benign to be fixed through a DSA, the stable release +managers are usually willing to include your fix nonetheless in a regular +upload to stable. Changing anything else in the package that isn't important is discouraged, @@ -338,19 +354,9 @@ rejected. Making changes to dependencies of other packages (by messing with making those other packages uninstallable, is strongly discouraged. -The Release Team (which can be reached at -&email-debian-release;) will regularly evaluate the uploads to -stable-proposed-updates and decide if your package can be -included in stable. Please be clear (and verbose, if -necessary) in your changelog entries for uploads to -stable, because otherwise the package won't be considered -for inclusion. - - -It's best practice to speak with the stable release manager -before uploading to -stable/stable-proposed-updates, so -that the uploaded package fits the needs of the next point release. +Uploads to the oldstable distributions are possible as +long as it hasn't been archived. The same rules as for stable + apply.
@@ -660,11 +666,25 @@ procedure. If the bug is real but it's caused by another package, just reassign the bug to the right package. If you don't know which package it should be reassigned to, you should ask for help on IRC or -on &email-debian-devel;. Please make sure that the -maintainer(s) of the package the bug is reassigned to know why you reassigned -it. +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 packagename@packages.debian.org and explaining +your reasons in that mail. Please note that a simple reassignment is +not e-mailed to the maintainers of the package +being reassigned to, so they won't know about it until they look at +a bug overview for their packages. +If the bug affects the operation of your package, please consider +cloning the bug and reassigning the clone to the package that really +causes the behavior. Otherwise, the bug will not be shown in your +package's bug list, possibly causing users to report the same bug over +and over again. You should block "your" bug with the reassigned, cloned +bug to document the relationship. + + + + Sometimes you also have to adjust the severity of the bug so that it matches our definition of the severity. That's because people tend to inflate the severity of bugs to make sure their bugs are fixed quickly. Some bugs may even @@ -719,9 +739,9 @@ several developers working on the same package. -Once a corrected package is available in the unstable -distribution, you can close the bug. This can be done automatically, read - . +Once a corrected package is available in the archive, the bug should be +closed indicating the version in which it was fixed. This can be done +automatically, read . @@ -1108,7 +1128,7 @@ uploads as well. Unless the upstream source has been uploaded to security.debian.org before (by a previous security update), build the upload with full upstream source (dpkg-buildpackage -sa). If there has been -a previous upload to security.debian.org with the same +a previous upload to security.debian.org with the same upstream version, you may upload without upstream source ( dpkg-buildpackage -sd). @@ -1222,14 +1242,36 @@ described in . If for some reason you want to completely remove a package (say, if it is an old compatibility library which is no longer required), you need to file a bug against ftp.debian.org asking that the package be removed; -as all bugs, this bug should normally have normal severity. Make sure you -indicate which distribution the package should be removed from. Normally, you -can only have packages removed from unstable and -experimental. Packages are not removed from +as all bugs, this bug should normally have normal severity. +The bug title should be in the form RM: package + [architecture list] -- +reason, where package +is the package to be removed and reason is a +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. + + + +If you want to remove a package you maintain, you should note this in +the bug title by prepending ROM (Request Of Maintainer). +There are several other standard acronyms used in the reasoning for a package +removal, see +for a complete list. That page also provides a convenient overview of +pending removal requests. + + + +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 @@ -1249,7 +1291,12 @@ supersedes the one to be removed. Usually you only ask for the removal of a package maintained by yourself. If you want to remove another package, you have to get the approval of its -maintainer. +maintainer. Should the package be orphaned and thus have no maintainer, +you should first discuss the removal request on &email-debian-qa;. If +there is a consensus that the package should be removed, you should +reassign and retitle the O: bug filed against the +wnpp package instead of filing a new bug as +removal request. Further information relating to these and other package removal related topics @@ -1264,7 +1311,9 @@ role="package">apt package. When invoked as apt-cache showpkg package, the program will show details for package, including reverse depends. Other useful programs include apt-cache rdepends, -apt-rdepends and grep-dctrl. Removal of +apt-rdepends, build-rdeps (in the +devscripts package) and +grep-dctrl. Removal of orphaned packages is discussed on &email-debian-qa;. @@ -1294,14 +1343,20 @@ occur too often anyway.
Replacing or renaming packages -When you make a mistake naming your package, you should follow a two-step -process to rename it. First, set your debian/control file -to replace and conflict with the obsolete name of the package (see the Debian Policy Manual for -details). Once you've uploaded the package and the package has moved into the -archive, file a bug against ftp.debian.org asking to remove -the package with the obsolete name. Do not forget to properly reassign the -package's bugs at the same time. +When the upstream maintainers for one of your packages chose to +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 +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 +obsolete name (see ). Do not forget +to properly reassign the package's bugs at the same time. At other times, you may make a mistake in constructing your package and wish to @@ -1399,9 +1454,10 @@ you are not a porter, you should read most of this chapter. Porting is the act of building Debian packages for architectures that are different from the original architecture of the package maintainer's binary package. It is a unique and essential activity. In fact, porters do most of -the actual compiling of Debian packages. For instance, for a single -i386 binary package, there must be a recompile for each -architecture, which amounts to &number-of-arches; more builds. +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, +amounting to &number-of-arches; more builds.
Being kind to porters @@ -1453,10 +1509,12 @@ Manual for instructions on setting build dependencies. -Don't set architecture to a value other than ``all'' or ``any'' unless you -really mean it. In too many cases, maintainers don't follow the instructions -in the Debian Policy -Manual. Setting your architecture to ``i386'' is usually incorrect. +Don't set architecture to a value other than all or +any unless you really mean it. In too many cases, +maintainers don't follow the instructions in the Debian Policy Manual. Setting your +architecture to only one architecture (such as i386 +or amd64) is usually incorrect. @@ -1471,7 +1529,7 @@ scratch with dpkg-buildpackage. Make sure you don't ship your source package with the debian/files or debian/substvars -files. They should be removed by the `clean' target of +files. They should be removed by the clean target of debian/rules. @@ -1487,7 +1545,9 @@ even if it's the same architecture. Don't depend on the package you're building being installed already (a sub-case -of the above issue). +of the above issue). There are, of course, exceptions to this rule, but be +aware that any case like this needs manual bootstrapping and cannot be done +by automated package builders. @@ -1500,11 +1560,11 @@ standardize on different compilers. -Make sure your debian/rules contains separate ``binary-arch'' and -``binary-indep'' targets, as the Debian Policy Manual requires. Make sure that -both targets work independently, that is, that you can call the target without -having called the other before. To test this, try to run -dpkg-buildpackage -B. +Make sure your debian/rules contains separate binary-arch +and binary-indep targets, as the Debian Policy Manual +requires. Make sure that both targets work independently, that is, that you +can call the target without having called the other before. To test this, +try to run dpkg-buildpackage -B. @@ -1531,7 +1591,8 @@ 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 @@ -1548,14 +1609,15 @@ which the package was built was not good enough (outdated or obsolete library, bad compiler, ...). Then you may just need to recompile it in an updated environment. However, you have to bump the version number in this case, so that the old bad package can be replaced in the Debian archive -(katie refuses to install new packages if they don't have a +(dak refuses to install new packages if they don't have a version number greater than the currently available one). You have to make sure that your binary-only NMU doesn't render the package uninstallable. This could happen when a source package generates -arch-dependent and arch-independent packages that depend on each other via -$(Source-Version). +arch-dependent and arch-independent packages that have inter-dependencies +generated using dpkg's substitution variable $(Source-Version) +. Despite the required modification of the changelog, these are called @@ -1571,16 +1633,19 @@ source code). The ``magic'' for a recompilation-only NMU is triggered by using a suffix -appended to the package version number, following the form b<number>. +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 NMU should carry a version of ``2.9-3+b1''. If the latest -version was ``3.4+b1'' (i.e, a native package with a previous recompilation -NMU), your NMU should have a version number of ``3.4+b2''. In -the past, such NMUs used the third-level number on the Debian part of the -revision to denote their recompilation-only status; however, this syntax was -ambiguous with native packages and did not allow proper ordering of -recompile-only NMUs, source NMUs, and security NMUs on the same package, and -has therefore been abandoned in favor of this new syntax. +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 +Debian part of the revision to denote their recompilation-only status; +however, this syntax was ambiguous with native packages and did not allow +proper ordering of recompile-only NMUs, source NMUs, and security NMUs on +the same package, and has therefore been abandoned in favor of this new syntax. + Similar to initial porter uploads, the correct way of invoking @@ -1614,11 +1679,11 @@ team first. Secondly, porters doing source NMUs should make sure that the bug they submit -to the BTS should be of severity `serious' or greater. This ensures that a -single source package can be used to compile every supported Debian -architecture by release time. It is very important that we have one version of -the binary and source package for all architecture in order to comply with many -licenses. +to the BTS should be of severity serious or greater. This +ensures that a single source package can be used to compile every supported +Debian architecture by release time. It is very important that we have one +version of the binary and source package for all architectures in order to +comply with many licenses. Porters should try to avoid patches which simply kludge around bugs in the @@ -1667,34 +1732,30 @@ linkend="tools-porting"/> .
-
-<systemitem role="package">buildd</systemitem> +
+<systemitem role="package">wanna-build</systemitem> -The buildd system is used as a +The wanna-build system is used as a distributed, client-server build distribution system. It is usually used in -conjunction with build daemons, which are ``slave'' hosts -which simply check out and attempt to auto-build packages which need to be -ported. There is also an email interface to the system, which allows porters -to ``check out'' a source package (usually one which cannot yet be auto-built) -and work on it. +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. -buildd is not yet available as a -package; however, most porting efforts are either using it currently or -planning to use it in the near future. The actual automated builder is -packaged as sbuild, see its description -in . The complete buildd system also collects a number of as yet -unpackaged components which are currently very useful and in use continually, -such as andrea and wanna-build. +wanna-build 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, sbuild is available as a package, see its +description in . 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. -Some of the data produced by buildd -which is generally useful to porters is available on the web at . This data includes nightly updated -information from andrea (source dependencies) and -quinn-diff (packages needing -recompilation). +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. We are quite proud of this system, since it has so many possible uses. @@ -1717,8 +1778,8 @@ The buildds admins of each arch can be contacted at the mail address Some packages still have issues with building and/or working on some of the architectures supported by Debian, and cannot be ported at all, or not within a reasonable amount of time. An example is a package that is SVGA-specific (only -i386), or uses other hardware-specific features not supported on all -architectures. +available for i386 and amd64), or uses +other hardware-specific features not supported on all architectures. In order to prevent broken packages from being uploaded to the archive, and @@ -1736,9 +1797,9 @@ allow the package to build as soon as the required functionality is available. Additionally, if you believe the list of supported architectures is pretty -constant, you should change 'any' to a list of supported architectures in -debian/control. This way, the build will fail also, and indicate this to a -human reader without actually trying. +constant, you should change any to a list of supported +architectures in debian/control. This way, the build will +fail also, and indicate this to a human reader without actually trying. @@ -1776,8 +1837,8 @@ non-maintainer upload, or NMU. This section handles only source NMUs, i.e. NMUs which upload a new version of the package. For binary-only NMUs by porters or QA members, please see . If a buildd builds and uploads a package, that -too is strictly speaking a binary NMU. See for some -more information. +too is strictly speaking a binary NMU. See for +some more information. The main reason why NMUs are done is when a developer needs to fix another @@ -2184,7 +2245,7 @@ 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 +. This way, testing should always be close to being a release candidate. Please see below for details.
@@ -2224,7 +2285,7 @@ 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. may be of interest to check that information; @@ -2310,7 +2371,7 @@ Consider this example: 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 +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.