update Japanese translation

[developers-reference.git] / beyond-pkging.dbk

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE chapter PUBLIC "-//OASIS//DTD DocBook XML V4.4//EN"
    "http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xml/4.4/docbookx.dtd" [
  <!ENTITY % commondata SYSTEM "common.ent" > %commondata;
]>
<chapter id="beyond-pkging">
<title>Beyond Packaging</title>
<para>
Debian is about a lot more than just packaging software and maintaining those
packages.  This chapter contains information about ways, often really critical
ways, to contribute to Debian beyond simply creating and maintaining packages.
</para>
<para>
As a volunteer organization, Debian relies on the discretion of its members in
choosing what they want to work on and in choosing the most critical thing to
spend their time on.
</para>
<section id="submit-bug">
<title>Bug reporting</title>
<para>
We encourage you to file bugs as you find them in Debian packages.  In fact,
Debian developers are often the first line testers.  Finding and reporting bugs
in other developers' packages improves the quality of Debian.
</para>
<para>
Read the <ulink url="&url-bts-report;">instructions for
reporting bugs</ulink> in the Debian <ulink
url="&url-bts;">bug tracking system</ulink>.
</para>
<para>
Try to submit the bug from a normal user account at which you are likely to
receive mail, so that people can reach you if they need further information
about the bug.  Do not submit bugs as root.
</para>
<para>
You can use a tool like <citerefentry> <refentrytitle>reportbug</refentrytitle>
<manvolnum>1</manvolnum> </citerefentry> to submit bugs.  It can automate and
generally ease the process.
</para>
<para>
Make sure the bug is not already filed against a package.  Each package has a
bug list easily reachable at
<literal>http://&bugs-host;/<replaceable>packagename</replaceable></literal>.
Utilities like <citerefentry> <refentrytitle>querybts</refentrytitle>
<manvolnum>1</manvolnum> </citerefentry> can also provide you with this
information (and <command>reportbug</command> will usually invoke
<command>querybts</command> before sending, too).
</para>
<para>
Try to direct your bugs to the proper location.  When for example your bug is
about a package which overwrites files from another package, check the bug
lists for <emphasis>both</emphasis> of those packages in order to avoid filing
duplicate bug reports.
</para>
<para>
For extra credit, you can go through other packages, merging bugs which are
reported more than once, or tagging bugs `fixed' when they have already been
fixed.  Note that when you are neither the bug submitter nor the package
maintainer, you should not actually close the bug (unless you secure permission
from the maintainer).
</para>
<para>
From time to time you may want to check what has been going on with the bug
reports that you submitted.  Take this opportunity to close those that you
can't reproduce anymore.  To find out all the bugs you submitted, you just have
to visit
<literal>http://&bugs-host;/from:<replaceable>your-email-addr</replaceable></literal>.
</para>
<section id="submit-many-bugs">
<title>Reporting lots of bugs at once (mass bug filing)</title>
<para>
Reporting a great number of bugs for the same problem on a great number of
different packages — i.e., more than 10 — is a deprecated practice.  Take
all possible steps to avoid submitting bulk bugs at all.  For instance, if
checking for the problem can be automated, add a new check to <systemitem
role="package">lintian</systemitem> so that an error or warning is emitted.
</para>
<para>
If you report more than 10 bugs on the same topic at once, it is recommended
that you send a message to &email-debian-devel; describing
your intention before submitting the report, and mentioning the fact in the
subject of your mail.  This will allow other developers to verify that the bug
is a real problem.  In addition, it will help prevent a situation in which
several maintainers start filing the same bug report simultaneously.
</para>
<para>
Please use the programs <command>dd-list</command> and if appropriate
<command>whodepends</command> (from the package <systemitem role="package">devscripts</systemitem>) to generate a list
of all affected packages, and include the output in your mail to
&email-debian-devel;.
</para>
<para>
Note that when sending lots of bugs on the same subject, you should send the
bug report to <email>maintonly@&bugs-host;</email> so that the bug report
is not forwarded to the bug distribution mailing list.
</para>
<section id="usertags">
<title>Usertags</title>
<para>
You may wish to use BTS usertags when submitting bugs across a number of
packages. Usertags are similar to normal tags such as 'patch' and 'wishlist'
but differ in that they are user-defined and occupy a namespace that is
unique to a particular user. This allows multiple sets of developers to
'usertag' the same bug in different ways without conflicting.
</para>
<para>
To add usertags when filing bugs, specify the <literal>User</literal> and
<literal>Usertags</literal> pseudo-headers:
</para>
<screen>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: <replaceable>title-of-bug</replaceable>

Package: <replaceable>pkgname</replaceable>
<replaceable>[ ... ]</replaceable>
User: <replaceable>email-addr</replaceable>
Usertags: <replaceable>tag-name [ tag-name ... ]</replaceable>

<replaceable>description-of-bug ...</replaceable>
</screen>
<para>
Note that tags are seperated by spaces and cannot contain underscores. If you
are filing bugs for a particular group or team it is recommended that you
set the <literal>User</literal> to an appropriate mailing list after describing
your intention there.
</para>
<para>
To view bugs tagged with a specific usertag, visit
<literal>http://&bugs-host;/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=<replaceable>email-addr</replaceable>&amp;tag=<replaceable>tag-name</replaceable></literal>.
</para>
</section>
</section>

</section>

<section id="qa-effort">
<title>Quality Assurance effort</title>
<section id="qa-daily-work">
<title>Daily work</title>
<para>
Even though there is a dedicated group of people for Quality Assurance, QA
duties are not reserved solely for them.  You can participate in this effort by
keeping your packages as bug-free as possible, and as lintian-clean (see <xref
linkend="lintian"/>) as possible.  If you do not find that possible, then you
should consider orphaning some of your packages (see <xref
linkend="orphaning"/>).  Alternatively, you may ask the help of other people
in order to catch up with the backlog of bugs that you have (you can ask for
help on &email-debian-qa; or
&email-debian-devel;).  At the same time, you can look for
co-maintainers (see <xref linkend="collaborative-maint"/>).
</para>
</section>

<section id="qa-bsp">
<title>Bug squashing parties</title>
<para>
From time to time the QA group organizes bug squashing parties to get rid of as
many problems as possible.  They are announced on
&email-debian-devel-announce; and the announcement explains
which area will be the focus of the party: usually they focus on release
critical bugs but it may happen that they decide to help finish a major upgrade
(like a new <command>perl</command> version which requires recompilation of all
the binary modules).
</para>
<para>
The rules for non-maintainer uploads differ during the parties because the
announcement of the party is considered prior notice for NMU.  If you have
packages that may be affected by the party (because they have release critical
bugs for example), you should send an update to each of the corresponding bug
to explain their current status and what you expect from the party.  If you
don't want an NMU, or if you're only interested in a patch, or if you will deal
yourself with the bug, please explain that in the BTS.
</para>
<para>
People participating in the party have special rules for NMU, they can NMU
without prior notice if they upload their NMU to DELAYED/3-day at least.  All
other NMU rules apply as usually; they should send the patch of the NMU to the
BTS (to one of the open bugs fixed by the NMU, or to a new bug, tagged fixed).
They should also respect any particular wishes of the maintainer.
</para>
<para>
If you don't feel confident about doing an NMU, just send a patch to the BTS.
It's far better than a broken NMU.
</para>
</section>

</section>

<section id="contacting-maintainers">
<title>Contacting other maintainers</title>
<para>
During your lifetime within Debian, you will have to contact other maintainers
for various reasons.  You may want to discuss a new way of cooperating between
a set of related packages, or you may simply remind someone that a new upstream
version is available and that you need it.
</para>
<para>
Looking up the email address of the maintainer for the package can be
distracting.  Fortunately, there is a simple email alias,
<literal><replaceable>package</replaceable>@&packages-host;</literal>, which provides a way to
email the maintainer, whatever their individual email address (or addresses)
may be.  Replace <replaceable>package</replaceable> with the name of a source
or a binary package.
</para>
<para>
You may also be interested in contacting the persons who are subscribed to a
given source package via <xref linkend="pkg-tracking-system"/>.  You can do so
by using the <literal><replaceable>package</replaceable>@&pts-host;</literal> email
address.
</para>
<!-- FIXME: moo@packages.d.o is easily confused with moo@packages.qa.d.o -->
</section>

<section id="mia-qa">
<title>Dealing with inactive and/or unreachable maintainers</title>
<para>
If you notice that a package is lacking maintenance, you should make sure that
the maintainer is active and will continue to work on their packages.  It is
possible that they are not active any more, but haven't registered out of the
system, so to speak.  On the other hand, it is also possible that they just
need a reminder.
</para>
<para>
There is a simple system (the MIA database) in which information about
maintainers who are deemed Missing In Action is recorded.  When a member of the
QA group contacts an inactive maintainer or finds more information about one,
this is recorded in the MIA database.  This system is available in
<filename>/org/qa.debian.org/mia</filename> on the host <literal>qa.debian.org</literal>,
and can be queried with the <command>mia-query</command> tool.
Use <command>mia-query --help</command> to see how to query the database.
If you find that no information has been recorded about an inactive maintainer yet,
or that you can add more information, you should generally proceed as follows.
</para>
<para>
The first step is to politely contact the maintainer, and wait a reasonable
time for a response.  It is quite hard to define reasonable time, but it is
important to take into account that real life is sometimes very hectic.  One
way to handle this would be to send a reminder after two weeks.
</para>
<para>
If the maintainer doesn't reply within four weeks (a month), one can assume
that a response will probably not happen.  If that happens, you should
investigate further, and try to gather as much useful information about the
maintainer in question as possible.  This includes:
</para>
<itemizedlist>
<listitem>
<para>
The <literal>echelon</literal> information available through the <ulink
url="&url-debian-db;">developers' LDAP database</ulink>, which indicates
when the developer last posted to a Debian mailing list.  (This includes
mails about uploads distributed via the &email-debian-devel-changes; list.)
Also, remember to check whether the maintainer is marked as on vacation in
the database.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
The number of packages this maintainer is responsible for, and the condition of
those packages.  In particular, are there any RC bugs that have been open for
ages?  Furthermore, how many bugs are there in general?  Another important
piece of information is whether the packages have been NMUed, and if so, by
whom.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
Is there any activity of the maintainer outside of Debian?  For example, they
might have posted something recently to non-Debian mailing lists or news
groups.
</para>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>
<para>
A bit of a problem are packages which were sponsored — the maintainer is not
an official Debian developer.  The <literal>echelon</literal> information is not
available for sponsored people, for example, so you need to find and contact the
Debian developer who has actually uploaded the package.  Given that they signed
the package, they're responsible for the upload anyhow, and are likely to know
what happened to the person they sponsored.
</para>
<para>
It is also allowed to post a query to &email-debian-devel;,
asking if anyone is aware of the whereabouts of the missing maintainer.  Please
Cc: the person in question.
</para>
<para>
Once you have gathered all of this, you can contact
&email-mia;.  People on this alias will use the
information you provide in order to decide how to proceed.  For example, they
might orphan one or all of the packages of the maintainer.  If a package has
been NMUed, they might prefer to contact the NMUer before orphaning the package
— perhaps the person who has done the NMU is interested in the package.
</para>
<para>
One last word: please remember to be polite.  We are all volunteers and cannot
dedicate all of our time to Debian.  Also, you are not aware of the
circumstances of the person who is involved.  Perhaps they might be seriously
ill or might even have died — you do not know who may be on the receiving
side.  Imagine how a relative will feel if they read the e-mail of the deceased
and find a very impolite, angry and accusing message!
</para>
<para>
On the other hand, although we are volunteers, we do have a responsibility.  So
you can stress the importance of the greater good — if a maintainer does not
have the time or interest anymore, they should let go and give the package to
someone with more time.
</para>
<para>
If you are interested in working in the MIA team, please have a look at the
<filename>README</filename> file in <filename>/org/qa.debian.org/mia</filename> on
<literal>qa.debian.org</literal> where the technical details and the MIA procedures are
documented and contact &email-mia;.
</para>
</section>

<section id="newmaint">
<title>Interacting with prospective Debian developers</title>
<para>
Debian's success depends on its ability to attract and retain new and talented
volunteers.  If you are an experienced developer, we recommend that you get
involved with the process of bringing in new developers.  This section
describes how to help new prospective developers.
</para>
<section id="sponsoring">
<title>Sponsoring packages</title>
<para>
Sponsoring a package means uploading a package for a maintainer who is not able
to do it on their own. It's not a trivial matter, the sponsor must verify
the packaging and ensure that it is of the high level of quality that
Debian strives to have.
</para>
<para>
Debian Developers can sponsor packages. Debian Maintainers can't. 
</para>
<para>
The process of sponsoring a package is:
<orderedlist numeration="arabic">
<listitem>
<para>The maintainer prepares a source package (<filename>.dsc</filename>) and puts it online
somewhere (like on <ulink url="http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/welcome">mentors.debian.net</ulink>) or even better, provides
a link to a public VCS repository (see <xref linkend="servers-vcs"/>) where
the package is maintained.</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>The sponsor downloads (or checkouts) the source package.</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>The sponsor reviews the source package. If she finds issues, she
informs the maintainer and asks her to provide a fixed version (the
process starts over at step 1).</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>The sponsor could not find any remaining problem. She builds the
package, signs it, and uploads it to Debian.</para>
</listitem>
</orderedlist>
</para>
<para>
Before delving in the details of how to sponsor a package, you should
ask yourself whether adding the proposed package is beneficial to Debian.
</para>
<para>
There's no simple rule to answer this question, it can depend on many
factors: is the upstream codebase mature and not full of security holes?
Are there pre-existing packages that can do the same task and how do they
compare to this new package? Has the new package been requested by users
and how large is the user base? How active are the upstream developers?
</para>
<para>
You should also ensure that the prospective maintainer is going
to be a good maintainer. Does she already have some experience with other
packages? If yes, is she doing a good job with them (check out some bugs)?
Is she familiar with the package and its programming language?
Does she have the skills needed for this package? If not, is she able
to learn them?
</para>
<para>
It's also a good idea to know where she stands towards Debian: does
she agree with Debian's philosophy and does she intend to join Debian?
Given how easy it is to become a Debian Maintainer, you might want
to only sponsor people who plan to join. That way you know from the start
that you won't have to act as a sponsor indefinitely.
</para>
<section id="sponsoring-new-package">
<title>Sponsoring a new package</title>
<para>
New maintainers usually have certain difficulties creating Debian packages —
this is quite understandable. They will do mistakes. That's why sponsoring
a brand new package into Debian requires a thorough review of the Debian
packaging. Sometimes several iterations will be needed until the package
is good enough to be uploaded to Debian. Thus being a sponsor implies being
a mentor.
</para>
<para>
Don't ever sponsor a new package without reviewing it. The review
of new packages done by ftpmasters mainly ensures that the software
is really free. Of course, it happens that they stumble on packaging
problems but they really should not. It's your task to ensure that
the uploaded package complies with the Debian Free Software Guidelines and
is of good quality.
</para>
<para>
Building the package and testing the software is part of the review, but
it's also not enough. The rest of this section contains a non-exhaustive
list of points to check in your review.
<footnote>
<para>
You can find more checks in the wiki where several developers share their own
<ulink url="http://wiki.debian.org/SponsorChecklist">sponsorship checklists</ulink>.
</para>
</footnote>
</para>
<itemizedlist>
<listitem>
<para>Verify that the upstream tarball provided is the same that has been
distributed by the upstream author (when the sources are repackaged for
Debian, generate the modified tarball yourself).</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>Run <command>lintian</command> (see <xref linkend="lintian"/>). It will catch many common
problems. Be sure to verify that any <command>lintian</command> overrides setup by the
maintainer is fully justified.</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>Run <command>licensecheck</command> (part of <xref linkend="devscripts"/>) and verify that
<filename>debian/copyright</filename> seems correct and complete. Look for
license problems (like files with “All rights reserved”
headers, or with a non-DFSG compliant license). <command>grep -ri</command>
is your friend for this task.</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>Build the package with <command>pbuilder</command> (or any similar tool, see <xref
linkend="pbuilder"/>) to ensure that the build-dependencies are
complete.</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>Proofread <filename>debian/control</filename>: does it follow the
best practices (see <xref linkend="bpp-debian-control"/>)? Are the dependencies
complete?</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>Proofread <filename>debian/rules</filename>: does it follow the
best practices (see <xref linkend="bpp-debian-rules"/>)? Do you see some
possible improvements?</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>Proofread the maintainer scripts (<filename>preinst</filename>,
<filename>postinst</filename>, <filename>prerm</filename>,
<filename>postrm</filename>, <filename>config</filename>): will the
<filename>preinst</filename>/<filename>postrm</filename> work when the dependencies are not
installed? Are all the scripts idempotent (i.e. can you run them multiple
times without consequences)?</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>Review any change to upstream files (either in <filename>.diff.gz</filename>, or in
<filename>debian/patches/</filename> or directly embedded in the <filename>debian</filename>
tarball for binary files). Are they justified? Are they properly
documented (with <ulink url="&url-dep3;">DEP-3</ulink> for patches)?</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>For every file, ask yourself why the file is there and whether it's
the right way to achieve the desired result. Is the maintainer following
the best packaging practices (see <xref
linkend="best-pkging-practices"/>)?</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>Build the packages, install them and try the software. Ensure you can
remove and purge the packages. Maybe test them with <command>piuparts</command>.
</para>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>
<para>
If the audit did not reveal any problem, you can build the package and
upload it to Debian. Remember that even if you're not the maintainer,
the sponsor is still responsible of what he uploaded to Debian. That's
why you're encouraged to keep up with the package through the
<xref linkend="pkg-tracking-system"/>.
</para>
<para>
Note that you should not need to modify the source package to put your name
in the <filename>changelog</filename> or in the <filename>control</filename> file. The <literal>Maintainer</literal>
field of the <filename>control</filename> file and the
<filename>changelog</filename> should list the person who did the
packaging, i.e. the sponsoree. That way she will get all the BTS mail.
</para>
<para>Instead you should instruct <command>dpkg-buildpackage</command> to use your key for
the signature. You do that with the <literal>-k</literal> option:</para>
<screen>
dpkg-buildpackage -k<replaceable>KEY-ID</replaceable>
</screen>
<para>If you use <command>debuild</command> and <command>debsign</command>, you can even configure it permanently
in <filename>~/.devscripts</filename>:</para>
<programlisting>
DEBSIGN_KEYID=<replaceable>KEY-ID</replaceable>
</programlisting>
</section>

<section id="sponsoring-update">
<title>Sponsoring an update of an existing package</title>
<para>
You will usually assume that the package has already gone through a full
review. So instead of doing it again, you will carefully analyze the
difference between the current version and the new version prepared by the
maintainer. If you have not done the initial review yourself, you might
still want to have a more deeper look just in case the initial reviewer
was sloppy.
</para>
<para>
To be able to analyze the difference you need both versions. Download the
current version of the source package (with <command>apt-get source</command>)
and rebuild it (or download the current binary packages with
<command>aptitude download</command>). Download the source package to sponsor
(usually with <command>dget</command>).
</para>
<para>
Read the new changelog entry, it should tell you what to expect during the
review. The main tool you will use is <command>debdiff</command> (provide by
the <systemitem role="package">devscripts</systemitem> package), you can run it with two source packages (<filename>.dsc</filename>
files), or two binary packages, or two <filename>.changes</filename> files (it will then
compare all the binary packages listed in the <filename>.changes</filename>).
</para>
<para>
If you compare the source packages (excluding upstream files in the case
of a new upstream version, for example by filtering the output of <command>debdiff</command>
with <command>filterdiff -i '*/debian/*'</command>), you must understand all the
changes you see and they should be properly documented in the Debian
changelog.
</para>
<para>
If everything is fine, build the package and compare the binary packages
to verify that the changes on the source package have no unexpected
consequences (like some files dropped by mistake, missing dependencies,
etc.).
</para>
<para>
You might want to check out the Package Tracking System (see <xref
linkend="pkg-tracking-system"/>) to verify if the
maintainer has not missed something important. Maybe there are translations
updates sitting in the BTS that could have been integrated. Maybe the package
has been NMUed and the maintainer forgot to integrate the changes from the
NMU in his package. Maybe there's a release critical bug that he has left
unhandled and that's blocking migration to <literal>testing</literal>. Whatever. If you find
something that she could have done (better), it's time to tell her so that
she can improve for next time, and so that she has a better understanding
of her responsibilities.
</para>
<para>
If you have found no major problem, upload the new version. Otherwise
ask the maintainer to provide you a fixed version.
</para>
</section>
</section>

<section id="advocating-new-developers">
<title>Advocating new developers</title>
<para>
See the page about <ulink
url="&url-newmaint-advocate;">advocating a prospective
developer</ulink> at the Debian web site.
</para>
</section>

<section id="become-application-manager">
<title>Handling new maintainer applications</title>
<para>
Please see <ulink url="&url-newmaint-amchecklist;">Checklist
for Application Managers</ulink> at the Debian web site.
</para>
</section>

</section>

</chapter>