X-Git-Url: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~ianmdlvl/git?a=blobdiff_plain;f=pkgs.dbk;h=8f1f36b9cd1928e497af1ffbc5e1afcd372d2d29;hb=e81cdebedab690ef881d87af6f533e51c026565c;hp=fdf7a0fc2ea957c584c74a47e9d1548227e0f7c6;hpb=c81927355fe51c8a09827d098d0caad05a052d67;p=developers-reference.git diff --git a/pkgs.dbk b/pkgs.dbk index fdf7a0f..8f1f36b 100644 --- a/pkgs.dbk +++ b/pkgs.dbk @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ %commondata; + %commondata; ]> Managing Packages @@ -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 debian-devel@&lists-host; 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: @@ -72,13 +76,13 @@ already is a volunteer, so efforts may be shared. It lets the rest of the maintainers know more about the package than the one line description and the usual changelog entry ``Initial release'' that gets -posted to debian-devel-changes. +posted to &email-debian-devel-changes;. -It is helpful to the people who live off unstable (and form our first line of -testers). We should encourage these people. +It is helpful to the people who live off unstable (and form +our first line of testers). We should encourage these people. @@ -110,7 +114,7 @@ for native packages. The debian/changelog file conforms to a certain structure, with a number of different fields. One field of note, the -distribution, is described in distribution, is described in . More information about the structure of this file can be found in the Debian Policy section titled debian/changelog. @@ -206,7 +210,7 @@ There are two types of Debian source packages: -the so-called native packages, where there is no +the so-called native packages, where there is no distinction between the original sources and the patches applied for Debian @@ -269,33 +273,43 @@ The package build process extracts this information from the first line of the Distribution field of the .changes file. -There are several possible values for this field: `stable', `unstable', -`testing-proposed-updates' and `experimental'. Normally, packages are uploaded -into unstable. +There are several possible values for this field: stable, +unstable, testing-proposed-updates and +experimental. Normally, packages are uploaded into +unstable. -Actually, there are two other possible distributions: `stable-security' and -`testing-security', but read for more -information on those. +Actually, there are two other possible distributions: stable-security + and testing-security, but read + for more information on those. It is not possible to upload a package into several distributions at the same time.
-Special case: uploads to the <emphasis>stable</emphasis> 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 p-u-new-queue for review by the stable release -managers, and if approved will be installed in +Uploading to stable means that the package will transfered +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 +From there, it will be included in stable with the next point release. -Extra care should be taken when uploading to stable. -Basically, a package should only be uploaded to stable if one of the following -happens: +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: @@ -315,46 +329,39 @@ a released architecture lacks the package -In the past, uploads to stable were used to address +In the past, uploads to stable were used to address 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, because even trivial fixes can cause bugs later on. -Packages uploaded to stable need to be compiled on systems -running stable, so that their dependencies are limited to -the libraries (and other packages) available in stable; -for example, a package uploaded to stable that depends on -a library package that only exists in unstable will be rejected. Making -changes to dependencies of other packages (by messing with -Provides or shlibs files), possibly making those other -packages uninstallable, is strongly discouraged. +Packages uploaded to stable need to be compiled on systems +running stable, so that their dependencies are limited to +the libraries (and other packages) available in stable; +for example, a package uploaded to stable that depends on +a library package that only exists in unstable will be +rejected. Making changes to dependencies of other packages (by messing with +Provides or shlibs files), possibly +making those other packages uninstallable, is strongly discouraged. -The Release Team (which can be reached at -debian-release@&lists-host;) 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.
-Special case: uploads to <emphasis>testing/testing-proposed-updates</emphasis> +Special case: uploads to <literal>testing/testing-proposed-updates</literal> Please see the information in the testing section for details. @@ -373,7 +380,8 @@ and dsc-file) with anonymous ftp to &ftp-master-host; in the directory &upload-queue;. To get the files processed there, they need to be signed with a key in the -debian keyring. +Debian Developers keyring or the Debian Maintainers keyring +(see ). Please note that you should transfer the changes file last. Otherwise, your @@ -391,19 +399,13 @@ the Debian package .
-
-Uploading to <literal>non-US</literal> - -Note: non-us was discontinued with the release of sarge. - -
-
Delayed uploads -Delayed uploads are done for the moment via the delayed queue at gluck. The -upload-directory is gluck:~tfheen/DELAYED/[012345678]-day. -0-day is uploaded multiple times per day to ftp-master. +Delayed uploads are done for the moment via the delayed queue at gluck +. The upload-directory is +gluck:~tfheen/DELAYED/[012345678]-day. 0-day is uploaded +multiple times per day to &ftp-master-host;. With a fairly recent dput, this section @@ -415,11 +417,12 @@ fqdn = gluck.debian.org incoming = ~tfheen -in ~/.dput.cf should work fine for uploading to the DELAYED queue. +in ~/.dput.cf should work fine for uploading to the +DELAYED queue. Note: Since this upload queue goes to -ftp-master, the prescription found in &ftp-master-host;, the prescription found in applies here as well.
@@ -428,19 +431,20 @@ linkend="upload-ftp-master"/> applies here as well. Security uploads Do NOT upload a package to the security -upload queue (oldstable-security, stable-security, 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 . +upload queue (oldstable-security, stable-security +, 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 .
Other upload queues -The scp queues on ftp-master, and security are mostly unusable due to the login -restrictions on those hosts. +The scp queues on &ftp-master-host;, and +security.debian.org are mostly unusable due to the login restrictions +on those hosts. The anonymous queues on ftp.uni-erlangen.de and ftp.uk.debian.org are currently @@ -452,11 +456,6 @@ 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. - -For the time being, the anonymous ftp queue on auric.debian.org (the former -ftp-master) works, but it is deprecated and will be removed at some point in -the future. -
@@ -465,10 +464,11 @@ the future. The Debian archive maintainers are responsible for handling package uploads. For the most part, uploads are automatically handled on a daily basis by the archive maintenance tools, katie. Specifically, updates to -existing packages to the `unstable' distribution are handled 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. +existing packages to the unstable distribution are handled +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. In any case, you will receive an email notification indicating that the package @@ -501,24 +501,24 @@ actually just hints. The archive maintainers keep track of the canonical sections and priorities for -packages in the override file. If there is a disparity -between the override file and the package's fields as +packages in the override file. If there is a disparity +between the override file and the package's fields as indicated in debian/control, then you will receive an email noting the divergence when the package is installed into the archive. You can either correct your debian/control file for your -next upload, or else you may wish to make a change in the override -file. +next upload, or else you may wish to make a change in the override +file. To alter the actual section that a package is put in, you need to first make sure that the debian/control file in your package is -accurate. Next, send an email override-change@debian.org or -submit a bug against &ftp-debian-org; -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. +accurate. Next, send an email &email-override; or submit a +bug against ftp.debian.org 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. -For more information about override files, see +For more information about override files, see dpkg-scanpackages 1 and . @@ -565,10 +565,10 @@ can check them by browsing this page: Maintainers interact with the BTS via email addresses at -&bugs-host;. Documentation on available commands can be -found at , or, if you have -installed the doc-debian package, you -can look at the local files /usr/share/doc/debian/bug-*. +&bugs-host;. Documentation on available +commands can be found at , or, +if you have installed the doc-debian +package, you can look at the local files &file-bts-docs;. Some find it useful to get periodic reports on open bugs. You can add a cron @@ -602,16 +602,16 @@ Porters frequently use this acronym. Once you've dealt with a bug report (e.g. fixed it), mark it as -done (close it) by sending an explanation message to +done (close it) by sending an explanation message to 123-done@&bugs-host;. If you're fixing a bug by changing and uploading the package, you can automate bug closing as described in . You should never close bugs via the bug server -close command sent to -control@&bugs-host;. If you do so, the original submitter -will not receive any information about why the bug was closed. +close command sent to &email-bts-control;. +If you do so, the original submitter will not receive any information about why +the bug was closed.
@@ -657,7 +657,7 @@ unacceptable, you (or the submitter) may want to require a decision of the technical committee by reassigning the bug to tech-ctte (you may use the clone command of the BTS if you wish to keep it reported against your package). Before doing so, please -read the recommended +read the recommended procedure. @@ -666,11 +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 debian-devel@&lists-host;. 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 @@ -703,14 +717,14 @@ someone, the bug may be closed. If the bug is related to the packaging, you just fix it. If you are not able to fix it yourself, then tag the bug as help. You can also -ask for help on debian-devel@&lists-host; or -debian-qa@&lists-host;. If it's an upstream problem, you -have to forward it to the upstream author. Forwarding a bug is not enough, you -have to check at each release if the bug has been fixed or not. If it has, you -just close it, otherwise you have to remind the author about it. If you have -the required skills you can prepare a patch that fixes the bug and send it to -the author at the same time. Make sure to send the patch to the BTS and to tag -the bug as patch. +ask for help on &email-debian-devel; or +&email-debian-qa;. If it's an upstream problem, you have to +forward it to the upstream author. Forwarding a bug is not enough, you have to +check at each release if the bug has been fixed or not. If it has, you just +close it, otherwise you have to remind the author about it. If you have the +required skills you can prepare a patch that fixes the bug and send it to the +author at the same time. Make sure to send the patch to the BTS and to tag the +bug as patch. @@ -725,9 +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 . @@ -784,7 +798,7 @@ If you happen to mistype a bug number or forget a bug in the changelog entries, don't hesitate to undo any damage the error caused. To reopen wrongly closed bugs, send a reopen XXX command to the bug tracking system's control address, -control@&bugs-host;. To close any remaining bugs that were +&email-bts-control;. To close any remaining bugs that were fixed by your upload, email the .changes file to XXX-done@&bugs-host;, where XXX is the bug number, and put Version: YYY and an empty line as the first two @@ -812,7 +826,7 @@ Due to their sensitive nature, security-related bugs must be handled carefully. The Debian Security Team exists to coordinate this activity, keeping track of outstanding security problems, helping maintainers with security problems or fixing them themselves, sending security advisories, and maintaining -security.debian.org. +security.debian.org. @@ -820,16 +834,16 @@ security.debian.org. 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 -team@security.debian.org as soon as possible. DO NOT UPLOAD any packages for stable; the security -team will do that. Useful information includes, for example: +&email-security-team; as soon as possible. DO NOT UPLOAD any packages for stable; + the security team will do that. Useful information includes, for example: 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 testing and -unstable. +version that is present in a supported Debian release, as well as +testing and unstable. @@ -915,7 +929,8 @@ release of Debian. When sending confidential information to the security team, be sure to mention this fact. -Please note that if secrecy is needed you may not upload a fix to unstable (or +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 obfuscate the details of the change, as the code itself is public, and can (and will) be examined by the general public. @@ -931,10 +946,10 @@ has become public. Security Advisories Security advisories are only issued for the current, released stable -distribution, and not for testing or unstable. When -released, advisories are sent to the -debian-security-announce@&lists-host; mailing list and -posted on the security web +distribution, and not for testing +or unstable. When released, advisories are sent to the +&email-debian-security-announce; mailing list and posted on +the security web page. Security advisories are written and posted by the security team. However they certainly do not mind if a maintainer can supply some of the information for them, or write part of the text. Information that should be in @@ -1062,10 +1077,10 @@ Be sure to verify the following items: Target the right distribution in your debian/changelog. -For stable this is stable-security and for testing this is -testing-security, and for the previous stable release, this -is oldstable-security. Do not target -distribution-proposed-updates or +For stable this is stable-security and +for testing this is testing-security, and for the previous +stable release, this is oldstable-security. Do not target +distribution-proposed-updates or stable! @@ -1079,7 +1094,8 @@ The upload should have urgency=high. 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 unstable, so that it is clear +Include the same information in the changelog for unstable, +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 @@ -1092,10 +1108,10 @@ 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 dpkg --compare-versions. Be careful not to re-use a version number that you have already used for a previous upload. For -testing, there must be a higher version in -unstable. If there is none yet (for example, if -testing and unstable have the same -version) you must upload a new version to unstable first. +testing, there must be a higher version in +unstable. If there is none yet (for example, if +testing and unstable have the same +version) you must upload a new version to unstable first. @@ -1109,11 +1125,12 @@ 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 upstream version, you may upload -without upstream source (dpkg-buildpackage -sd). +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 +upstream version, you may upload without upstream source ( +dpkg-buildpackage -sd). @@ -1139,15 +1156,16 @@ linkend="debootstrap"/> ). Uploading the fixed package Do NOT upload a package to the security -upload queue (oldstable-security, stable-security, 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. +upload queue (oldstable-security, stable-security +, 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. -Do NOT upload your fix to proposed-updates -without coordinating with the security team. Packages from security.debian.org -will be copied into the proposed-updates directory automatically. If a package +Do NOT upload your fix to +proposed-updates without coordinating with the security team. +Packages from security.debian.org will be copied into +the proposed-updates directory automatically. If a package with the same or a higher version number is already installed into the archive, the security update will be rejected by the archive system. That way, the stable distribution will end up without a security update for this package @@ -1171,8 +1189,9 @@ problems that cannot be disclosed yet. If a member of the security team accepts a package, it will be installed on -security.debian.org as well as proposed for the proper -distribution-proposed-updates on ftp-master. +security.debian.org as well as proposed for the proper +distribution-proposed-updates +on &ftp-master-host;. @@ -1209,7 +1228,7 @@ automatically. If it does not, then contact the ftpmasters in order to understand what happened. -If, on the other hand, you need to change the subsection +If, on the other hand, you need to change the subsection 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 @@ -1222,15 +1241,37 @@ 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 -testing directly. Rather, they will be removed +against ftp.debian.org asking that the package be removed; +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 @@ -1250,7 +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 @@ -1259,14 +1305,16 @@ and . If in doubt concerning whether a package is disposable, email -debian-devel@&lists-host; asking for opinions. Also of -interest is the apt-cache program from 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, -apt-rdepends and grep-dctrl. Removal of -orphaned packages is discussed on debian-qa@&lists-host;. +apt-rdepends, build-rdeps (in the +devscripts package) and +grep-dctrl. Removal of +orphaned packages is discussed on &email-debian-qa;. Once the package has been removed, the package's bugs should be handled. They @@ -1283,7 +1331,7 @@ In the past, it was possible to remove packages from incoming system, this is no longer possible. Instead, you have to upload a new revision of your package with a higher version than the package you want to replace. Both versions will be installed in the archive but only the higher -version will actually be available in unstable since the +version will actually be available in unstable since the previous version will immediately be replaced by the higher. However, if you do proper testing of your packages, the need to replace a package should not occur too often anyway. @@ -1295,14 +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 @@ -1323,15 +1377,15 @@ mirror network. If you can no longer maintain a package, you need to inform others, and see that the package is marked as orphaned. You should set the package maintainer -to Debian QA Group <&pts-host;> and submit -a bug report against the pseudo package Debian QA Group &orphan-address; and +submit a bug report against the pseudo package wnpp. The bug report should be titled O: package -- short description indicating that the package is now orphaned. The severity of the bug should be set to -normal; if the package has a priority of standard or +normal; if the package has a priority of standard or higher, it should be set to important. If you feel it's necessary, send a copy -to debian-devel@&lists-host; by putting the address in the +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). @@ -1341,7 +1395,7 @@ for the moment, then you should instead submit a bug against wnpp and title it RFA: package -- short description. RFA stands for -Request For Adoption. +Request For Adoption. More information is on the WNPP @@ -1371,8 +1425,8 @@ package. Complaints about maintainers should be brought up on the developers' mailing list. If the discussion doesn't end with a positive conclusion, and the issue is of a technical nature, consider bringing it to the attention of the technical committee (see the technical committee web -page for more information). +url="&url-tech-ctte;">technical committee web page for +more information). If you take over an old package, you probably want to be listed as the @@ -1400,9 +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 @@ -1433,7 +1488,8 @@ Make sure that your Build-Depends and Build-Depends-Indep settings in debian/control are set properly. The best way to validate this is to use the debootstrap package -to create an unstable chroot environment (see ). +to create an unstable chroot environment (see ). Within that chrooted environment, install the build-essential package and any package dependencies mentioned in Build-Depends and/or @@ -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 @@ -1601,23 +1666,24 @@ the architecture is a candidate for inclusion into the next stable release; the release managers decide and announce which architectures are candidates. -If you are a porter doing an NMU for `unstable', 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 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 team first. +If you are a porter doing an NMU for unstable, 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 +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 +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 @@ -1666,34 +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 auto-builders, 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. @@ -1704,7 +1766,7 @@ also enable Debian to recompile entire distributions quickly. The buildds admins of each arch can be contacted at the mail address -$arch@buildd.debian.org. +arch@buildd.debian.org.
@@ -1716,8 +1778,8 @@ $arch@buildd.debian.org. 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 @@ -1735,9 +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. @@ -1758,7 +1820,7 @@ 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
@@ -1775,8 +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 @@ -1813,7 +1875,8 @@ work. A NMU should follow all conventions, written down in this section. For an -upload to testing or unstable, this order of steps is recommended: +upload to testing or unstable, this +order of steps is recommended: @@ -1866,9 +1929,10 @@ contact the developer first, and act later. Please see for details. -For the testing distribution, the rules may be changed by the release managers. -Please take additional care, and acknowledge that the usual way for a package -to enter testing is through unstable. +For the testing distribution, the rules may be changed by +the release managers. Please take additional care, and acknowledge that the +usual way for a package to enter testing is through +unstable. For the stable distribution, please take extra care. Of course, the release @@ -1926,9 +1990,9 @@ maintainer of a package should start their debian-revision numbering at `1'. -If you upload a package to testing or stable, sometimes, you need to fork the -version number tree. For this, version numbers like 1.1-3sarge0.1 could be -used. +If you upload a package to testing or stable +, sometimes, you need to fork the version number tree. For this, +version numbers like 1.1-3sarge0.1 could be used.
@@ -2032,8 +2096,8 @@ Unless you know the maintainer is still active, it is wise to check the package to see if it has been orphaned. The current list of orphaned packages which haven't had their maintainer set correctly is available at . If you perform an NMU on an -improperly orphaned package, please set the maintainer to ``Debian QA Group -<&pts-host;>''. +improperly orphaned package, please set the maintainer to Debian QA Group +<packages@qa.debian.org>. @@ -2057,7 +2121,7 @@ There are two new terms used throughout this section: ``binary-only NMU'' and throughout this document. Both binary-only and source NMUs are similar, since they involve an upload of a package by a developer who is not the official maintainer of that package. That is why it's a -non-maintainer upload. +non-maintainer upload. A source NMU is an upload of a package by a developer who is not the official @@ -2102,7 +2166,9 @@ co-maintainers. Generally there is a primary maintainer and one or more co-maintainers. The primary maintainer is the person whose name is listed in the Maintainer field of the debian/control -file. Co-maintainers are all the other maintainers. +file. Co-maintainers are all the other maintainers, +usually listed in the Uploaders field of the +debian/control file. In its most basic form, the process of adding a new co-maintainer is quite @@ -2120,7 +2186,7 @@ such as CVS or Subversion. Alioth (see Add the co-maintainer's correct maintainer name and address to the -Uploaders field in the global part of the +Uploaders field in the first paragraph of the debian/control file. @@ -2171,107 +2237,111 @@ a false sense of good maintenance.
Basics -Packages are usually installed into the `testing' distribution after they have -undergone some degree of testing in unstable. +Packages are usually installed into the testing distribution +after they have undergone some degree of testing in +unstable. 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 being a release candidate. Please see -below for details. +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.
Updates from unstable -The scripts that update the testing distribution are run -each day after the installation of the updated packages; these scripts are -called britney. They generate the -Packages files for the testing +The scripts that update the testing distribution are run +twice each day, right after the installation of the updated packages; these +scripts are called britney. They generate the +Packages files for the testing distribution, but they do so in an intelligent manner; they try to avoid any inconsistency and to use only non-buggy packages. -The inclusion of a package from unstable is conditional on +The inclusion of a package from unstable is conditional on the following: -The package must have been available in unstable for 2, 5 +The package must have been available in unstable for 2, 5 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 testing transition is taken into account. Those delays may be doubled -during a freeze, or testing transitions may be switched off altogether; +previous testing transition is taken into account. Those +delays may be doubled during a freeze, or testing +transitions may be switched off altogether; -It must have the same number or fewer release-critical bugs than the version -currently available in testing; +It must not have new release-critical bugs (RC bugs affecting the version +available in unstable, but not affecting the version in +testing); It must be available on all architectures on which it has previously been built -in unstable. may be of interest to check that -information; +in unstable. may be of interest +to check that information; It must not break any dependency of a package which is already available in -testing; +testing; 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 +testing or they must be accepted into +testing at the same time (and they will be if they fulfill all the necessary criteria); -To find out whether a package is progressing into testing or not, see the -testing script output on the web page of the testing +To find out whether a package is progressing into testing +or not, see the testing script output on the web page of the testing distribution, or use the program grep-excuses which is in the devscripts package. This utility can easily be used in a crontab 5 to keep yourself informed of the progression of your packages into -testing. +testing. The update_excuses file does not always give the precise reason why the package is refused; you may have to find it on your own by looking for what would break with the inclusion of the package. The testing web page gives some +url="&url-testing-maint;">testing web page gives some more information about the usual problems which may be causing such troubles. -Sometimes, some packages never enter testing because the +Sometimes, some packages never enter testing because the set of inter-relationship is too complicated and cannot be sorted out by the scripts. See below for details. Some further dependency analysis is shown on — but be warned, this page also +url="http://release.debian.org/migration/"> — but be warned, this page also shows build dependencies which are not considered by britney.
out-of-date -For the testing migration script, outdated means: There are different versions -in unstable for the release architectures (except for the architectures in -fuckedarches; fuckedarches is a list of architectures that don't keep up (in -update_out.py), but currently, it's empty). outdated has nothing whatsoever to -do with the architectures this package has in testing. +For the testing migration script, outdated means: There are +different versions in unstable for the release architectures +(except for the architectures in fuckedarches; fuckedarches is a list of +architectures that don't keep up (in update_out.py), but +currently, it's empty). outdated has nothing whatsoever to do with the +architectures this package has in testing. Consider this example: @@ -2300,12 +2370,14 @@ Consider this example: -The package is out of date on alpha in unstable, and will not go to testing. -And removing foo from testing would not help at all, the package is still out -of date on alpha, and will not propagate to testing. +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. -However, if ftp-master removes a package in unstable (here on arm): +However, if ftp-master removes a package in unstable (here +on arm): @@ -2335,8 +2407,8 @@ However, if ftp-master removes a package in unstable (here on arm): In this case, the package is up to date on all release architectures in -unstable (and the extra hurd-i386 doesn't matter, as it's not a release -architecture). +unstable (and the extra hurd-i386 +doesn't matter, as it's not a release architecture). Sometimes, the question is raised if it is possible to allow packages in that @@ -2350,17 +2422,19 @@ maintain glibc or so.) Sometimes, a package is removed to allow another package in: This happens only to allow another package to go in if it's ready in every -other sense. Suppose e.g. that a cannot be installed -with the new version of b; then a may -be removed to allow b in. +other sense. Suppose e.g. that a cannot be installed +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 in this state). +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). -Furthermore, if a package has been removed from unstable, and no package in -testing depends on it any more, then it will automatically be removed. +Furthermore, if a package has been removed from unstable, +and no package in testing depends on it any more, then it +will automatically be removed.
@@ -2368,8 +2442,8 @@ testing depends on it any more, then it will automatically be removed. circular dependencies A situation which is not handled very well by britney is if package -a depends on the new version of package -b, and vice versa. +a depends on the new version of package +b, and vice versa. An example of this is: @@ -2398,32 +2472,34 @@ An example of this is: -Neither package a nor package b is +Neither package a nor package b is considered for update. Currently, this requires some manual hinting from the release team. Please -contact them by sending mail to debian-release@&lists-host; -if this happens to one of your packages. +contact them by sending mail to &email-debian-release; if this +happens to one of your packages.
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 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. +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. -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. +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.
@@ -2442,18 +2518,20 @@ 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; first, each package alone, and then larger and even larger -sets of packages together. Each try is accepted if testing is not more -uninstallable after the update than before. (Before and after this part, some -hints are processed; but as only release masters can hint, this is probably not -so important for you.) +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 +of testing, such that all subsequent installability +tests include this package. Hints from the release team are processed +before or after this main run, depending on the exact type. If you want to see more details, you can look it up on -merkel:/org/&ftp-debian-org;/testing/update_out/ (or there in -~aba/testing/update_out to see a setup with a smaller packages file). Via web, -it's at 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 @@ -2467,31 +2545,34 @@ url="http://&ftp-master-host;/testing/hints/">.
Direct updates to testing -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. +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. Keep in mind that packages uploaded there are not automatically processed, they have to go through the hands of the release manager. So you'd better have a good reason to upload there. In order to know what a good reason is in the release managers' eyes, you should read the instructions that they regularly -give on debian-devel-announce@&lists-host;. +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 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. +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 +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. -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 -testing-proposed-updates of package version 1.2. +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 +testing-proposed-updates of package version +1.2. Please make sure you didn't miss any of these items in your upload: @@ -2500,7 +2581,8 @@ 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; @@ -2515,28 +2597,27 @@ Make sure that you included an appropriate explanation in the changelog; -Make sure that you've written testing or -testing-proposed-updates into your target distribution; +Make sure that you've written testing or +testing-proposed-updates into your target distribution; Make sure that you've built and tested your package in -testing, not in unstable; +testing, not in unstable; Make sure that your version number is higher than the version in -testing and testing-proposed-updates, -and lower than in unstable; +testing and testing-proposed-updates, +and lower than in unstable; After uploading and successful build on all platforms, contact the release team -at debian-release@&lists-host; and ask them to approve your -upload. +at &email-debian-release; and ask them to approve your upload. @@ -2548,40 +2629,40 @@ upload. What are release-critical bugs, and how do they get counted? All bugs of some higher severities are by default considered release-critical; -currently, these are critical, grave, and serious bugs. +currently, these are critical, grave and +serious bugs. 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. - - -The unstable bug count are all release-critical bugs without either any -release-tag (such as potato, woody) or with release-tag sid; also, only if they -are neither fixed nor set to sarge-ignore. The testing bug count for a package -is considered to be roughly the bug count of unstable count at the last point -when the testing version equalled the unstable version. +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. -This will change post-sarge, as soon as we have versions in the bug tracking -system. +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 +architecture. The testing bug count is defined analogously.
-How could installing a package into testing possibly break other packages? +How could installing a package into <literal>testing</literal> possibly +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. +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. However, the old version may have provided a binary package with an old soname -of a library, such as libacme-foo0. Removing the old acmefoo will remove -libacme-foo0, which will break any packages which depend on it. +of a library, such as libacme-foo0. Removing the old +acmefoo will remove libacme-foo0, which +will break any packages which depend on it. Evidently, this mainly affects packages which provide changing sets of binary @@ -2593,7 +2674,8 @@ the ==, <=, or << varieties. When the set of binary packages provided by a source package change in this way, all the packages that depended on the old binaries will have to be updated to depend on the new binaries instead. Because installing such a source -package into testing breaks all the packages that depended on it in testing, +package into testing breaks all the packages that depended on +it in testing, some care has to be taken now: all the depending packages must be updated and ready to be installed themselves so that they won't be broken, and, once everything is ready, manual intervention by the release manager or an assistant @@ -2601,7 +2683,7 @@ is normally required. If you are having problems with complicated groups of packages like this, -contact debian-devel or debian-release for help. +contact &email-debian-devel; or &email-debian-release; for help.