From: he Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 15:05:22 +0000 (+0000) Subject: In the same spirit, wrap all uses of stable/testing/unstable and X-Git-Url: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~ianmdlvl/git?a=commitdiff_plain;h=d83ad0ef98fc97553ef37b7a9e1fe63f7d16096f;p=developers-reference.git In the same spirit, wrap all uses of stable/testing/unstable and release codenames in git-svn-id: svn://anonscm.debian.org/ddp/manuals/trunk/developers-reference@5198 313b444b-1b9f-4f58-a734-7bb04f332e8d --- diff --git a/best-pkging-practices.dbk b/best-pkging-practices.dbk index 0376b3a..e91c78d 100644 --- a/best-pkging-practices.dbk +++ b/best-pkging-practices.dbk @@ -309,9 +309,9 @@ package, this should be mentioned. -If the package is experimental, or there are other reasons it should not be -used, if there are other packages that should be used instead, it should be -here as well. +If the package is experimental, or there are other reasons +it should not be used, if there are other packages that should be used instead, +it should be here as well. diff --git a/debian/changelog b/debian/changelog index b950db8..929fc65 100644 --- a/debian/changelog +++ b/debian/changelog @@ -15,6 +15,8 @@ developers-reference (3.4.0) UNRELEASED; urgency=low [ Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt ] * Replace abused tags with tags. + * In the same spirit, wrap all uses of stable/testing/unstable and + release codenames in * Remove reference to upload queue on auric in section 5.6.5, auric doesn't exist anymore. diff --git a/pkgs.dbk b/pkgs.dbk index 03d05bc..38ab0dd 100644 --- a/pkgs.dbk +++ b/pkgs.dbk @@ -77,8 +77,8 @@ posted to 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. @@ -269,14 +269,15 @@ 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 @@ -294,8 +295,8 @@ 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: +Basically, a package should only be uploaded to stable if +one of the following happens: @@ -331,10 +332,10 @@ 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. +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 @@ -424,11 +425,11 @@ 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 . @@ -456,10 +457,11 @@ day. 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 @@ -812,15 +814,15 @@ When you become aware of a security-related bug in a Debian package, whether or not you are the maintainer, collect pertinent information about the problem, and promptly contact the security team at &email-security-team; as soon as possible. DO NOT UPLOAD any packages for stable; the security -team will do that. Useful information includes, for example: +role="strong">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. @@ -906,7 +908,8 @@ 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. @@ -922,8 +925,8 @@ 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 +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. @@ -1053,9 +1056,9 @@ 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 +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! @@ -1070,7 +1073,8 @@ 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 @@ -1086,7 +1090,7 @@ 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. +version) you must upload a new version to unstable first. @@ -1130,10 +1134,10 @@ 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 @@ -1425,7 +1429,8 @@ 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 @@ -1593,15 +1598,16 @@ 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 @@ -1805,7 +1811,8 @@ 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: @@ -1858,9 +1865,10 @@ 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 @@ -1918,9 +1926,9 @@ 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. @@ -2165,15 +2173,16 @@ 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.
@@ -2197,8 +2206,9 @@ the following: 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; @@ -2211,8 +2221,8 @@ 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 to check that -information; +in unstable. may be of interest +to check that information; @@ -2231,8 +2241,8 @@ all the necessary criteria); -To find out whether a package is progressing into testing or not, see the -testing script output on the 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 @@ -2262,11 +2272,12 @@ 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: @@ -2295,12 +2306,14 @@ 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): @@ -2330,8 +2343,8 @@ 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 @@ -2350,12 +2363,14 @@ 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. @@ -2406,19 +2421,21 @@ 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.
@@ -2437,18 +2454,18 @@ 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; 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.) 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 @@ -2462,10 +2479,11 @@ 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 @@ -2477,16 +2495,18 @@ 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. +(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: @@ -2495,7 +2515,8 @@ 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; @@ -2546,16 +2567,18 @@ 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. +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. +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. This will change post-sarge, as soon as we have versions in the bug tracking @@ -2564,18 +2587,21 @@ system.
-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 @@ -2587,7 +2613,8 @@ 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 diff --git a/resources.dbk b/resources.dbk index 78aaab7..fa9cc70 100644 --- a/resources.dbk +++ b/resources.dbk @@ -638,9 +638,10 @@ literally unstable. The testing distribution is generated -automatically by taking packages from unstable if they satisfy certain -criteria. Those criteria should ensure a good quality for packages within -testing. The update to testing is launched each day after the new packages +automatically by taking packages from unstable if they +satisfy certain criteria. Those criteria should ensure a good quality for +packages within testing. The update to testing + is launched twice each day, right after the new packages have been installed. See . @@ -687,8 +688,8 @@ place in parallel with testing.
More information about the testing distribution -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. For more details, please see the information about @@ -700,7 +701,8 @@ the testing distribution. Experimental The experimental distribution is a special distribution. -It is not a full distribution in the same sense as `stable' and `unstable' are. +It is not a full distribution in the same sense as stable, +testing and unstable are. Instead, it is meant to be a temporary staging area for highly experimental software where there's a good chance that the software could break your system, or software that's just too unstable even for the unstable @@ -753,9 +755,10 @@ An alternative to experimental is to use your personal web space on people.debian.org. -When uploading to unstable a package which had bugs fixed in experimental, -please consider using the option -v to -dpkg-buildpackage to finally get them closed. +When uploading to unstable a package which had bugs fixed +in experimental, please consider using the option +-v to dpkg-buildpackage to finally get +them closed.
@@ -765,22 +768,28 @@ please consider using the option -v to Release code names Every released Debian distribution has a code name: Debian -1.1 is called `buzz'; Debian 1.2, `rex'; Debian 1.3, `bo'; Debian 2.0, `hamm'; -Debian 2.1, `slink'; Debian 2.2, `potato'; Debian 3.0, `woody'; Debian 3.1, -sarge; Debian 4.0, etch. There is also a ``pseudo-distribution'', called -`sid', which is the current `unstable' distribution; since packages are moved -from `unstable' to `testing' as they approach stability, `sid' itself is never -released. As well as the usual contents of a Debian distribution, `sid' -contains packages for architectures which are not yet officially supported or -released by Debian. These architectures are planned to be integrated into the -mainstream distribution at some future date. +1.1 is called buzz; Debian 1.2, rex; +Debian 1.3, bo; Debian 2.0, hamm; +Debian 2.1, slink; Debian 2.2, potato; +Debian 3.0, woody; Debian 3.1, sarge; +Debian 4.0, etch and Debian 5.0 will be called +lenny. There is also a ``pseudo-distribution'', called +sid, which is the current unstable +distribution; since packages are moved from unstable to +testing as they approach stability, sid +itself is never released. As well as the usual contents of a Debian +distribution, sid contains packages for architectures which +are not yet officially supported or released by Debian. These architectures +are planned to be integrated into the mainstream distribution at some future +date. Since Debian has an open development model (i.e., everyone can participate and -follow the development) even the `unstable' and `testing' distributions are -distributed to the Internet through the Debian FTP and HTTP server network. -Thus, if we had called the directory which contains the release candidate -version `testing', then we would have to rename it to `stable' when the version +follow the development) even the unstable and +testing distributions are distributed to the Internet through the +Debian FTP and HTTP server network. Thus, if we had called the directory which +contains the release candidate version testing, then we +would have to rename it to stable when the version is released, which would cause all FTP mirrors to re-retrieve the whole distribution (which is quite large). @@ -875,11 +884,11 @@ script is called to ask all the primary mirrors to update themselves. The archive maintenance software will also send the OpenPGP/GnuPG signed .changes file that you uploaded to the appropriate mailing lists. If a package is released with the Distribution: set -to `stable', the announcement is sent to +to stable, the announcement is sent to &email-debian-changes;. If a package is released with -Distribution: set to `unstable' or `experimental', the -announcement will be posted to &email-debian-devel-changes; -instead. +Distribution: set to unstable or +experimental, the announcement will be posted to +&email-debian-devel-changes; instead. Though ftp-master is restricted, a copy of the installation is available to all diff --git a/tools.dbk b/tools.dbk index 914d2f3..77ac8f4 100644 --- a/tools.dbk +++ b/tools.dbk @@ -95,10 +95,10 @@ errors. You should periodically get the newest lintian from `unstable' and check over all your -packages. Notice that the -i option provides detailed -explanations of what each error or warning means, what its basis in Policy is, -and commonly how you can fix the problem. +role="package">lintian from unstable and check +over all your packages. Notice that the -i option provides +detailed explanations of what each error or warning means, what its basis in +Policy is, and commonly how you can fix the problem. Refer to for more information on how and when to @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ use Lintian. You can also see a summary of all problems reported by Lintian on your packages at . These reports contain the latest lintian output for the whole development distribution -(unstable). +(unstable).