1 <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
2 <!DOCTYPE chapter PUBLIC "-//OASIS//DTD DocBook XML V4.4//EN"
3 "http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xml/4.4/docbookx.dtd" [
4 <!ENTITY % commondata SYSTEM "common.ent" > %commondata;
7 <title>Managing Packages</title>
9 This chapter contains information related to creating, uploading, maintaining,
12 <section id="newpackage">
13 <title>New packages</title>
15 If you want to create a new package for the Debian distribution, you should
16 first check the <ulink url="&url-wnpp;">Work-Needing and
17 Prospective Packages (WNPP)</ulink> list. Checking the WNPP list ensures that
18 no one is already working on packaging that software, and that effort is not
19 duplicated. Read the <ulink url="&url-wnpp;">WNPP web
20 pages</ulink> for more information.
23 Assuming no one else is already working on your prospective package, you must
24 then submit a bug report (<xref linkend="submit-bug"/> ) against the
25 pseudo-package <systemitem role="package">wnpp</systemitem> describing your
26 plan to create a new package, including, but not limiting yourself to, a
27 description of the package, the license of the prospective package, and the
28 current URL where it can be downloaded from.
31 You should set the subject of the bug to <literal>ITP:
32 <replaceable>foo</replaceable> -- <replaceable>short
33 description</replaceable></literal>, substituting the name of the new
34 package for <replaceable>foo</replaceable>.
35 The severity of the bug report must be set to <literal>wishlist</literal>.
36 Please send a copy to &email-debian-devel; by using the X-Debbugs-CC
37 header (don't use CC:, because that way the message's subject won't
38 indicate the bug number). If you are packaging so many new packages (>10)
39 that notifying the mailing list in seperate messages is too disruptive,
40 do send a summary after filing the bugs to the debian-devel list instead.
41 This will inform the other developers about upcoming packages and will
42 allow a review of your description and package name.
45 Please include a <literal>Closes:
46 bug#<replaceable>nnnnn</replaceable></literal> entry in the changelog of the
47 new package in order for the bug report to be automatically closed once the new
48 package is installed in the archive (see <xref linkend="upload-bugfix"/> ).
51 If you think your package needs some explanations for the administrators of the
52 NEW package queue, include them in your changelog, send to ftpmaster@debian.org
53 a reply to the email you receive as a maintainer after your upload, or reply to
54 the rejection email in case you are already re-uploading.
57 When closing security bugs include CVE numbers as well as the Closes: #nnnnn.
58 This is useful for the security team to track vulnerabilities. If an upload is
59 made to fix the bug before the advisory ID is known, it is encouraged to modify
60 the historical changelog entry with the next upload. Even in this case, please
61 include all available pointers to background information in the original
65 There are a number of reasons why we ask maintainers to announce their
71 It helps the (potentially new) maintainer to tap into the experience of people
72 on the list, and lets them know if anyone else is working on it already.
77 It lets other people thinking about working on the package know that there
78 already is a volunteer, so efforts may be shared.
83 It lets the rest of the maintainers know more about the package than the one
84 line description and the usual changelog entry ``Initial release'' that gets
85 posted to &email-debian-devel-changes;.
90 It is helpful to the people who live off <literal>unstable</literal> (and form
91 our first line of testers). We should encourage these people.
96 The announcements give maintainers and other interested parties a better feel
97 of what is going on, and what is new, in the project.
102 Please see <ulink url="http://&ftp-master-host;/REJECT-FAQ.html"></ulink>
103 for common rejection reasons for a new package.
107 <section id="changelog-entries">
108 <title>Recording changes in the package</title>
110 Changes that you make to the package need to be recorded in the
111 <filename>debian/changelog</filename>. These changes should provide a concise
112 description of what was changed, why (if it's in doubt), and note if any bugs
113 were closed. They also record when the package was completed. This file will
115 <filename>/usr/share/doc/<replaceable>package</replaceable>/changelog.Debian.gz</filename>,
117 <filename>/usr/share/doc/<replaceable>package</replaceable>/changelog.gz</filename>
121 The <filename>debian/changelog</filename> file conforms to a certain structure,
122 with a number of different fields. One field of note, the
123 <literal>distribution</literal>, is described in <xref
124 linkend="distribution"/> . More information about the structure of this file
125 can be found in the Debian Policy section titled
126 <filename>debian/changelog</filename>.
129 Changelog entries can be used to automatically close Debian bugs when the
130 package is installed into the archive. See <xref linkend="upload-bugfix"/> .
133 It is conventional that the changelog entry of a package that contains a new
134 upstream version of the software looks like this:
137 * new upstream version
140 There are tools to help you create entries and finalize the
141 <filename>changelog</filename> for release — see <xref linkend="devscripts"/>
142 and <xref linkend="dpkg-dev-el"/> .
145 See also <xref linkend="bpp-debian-changelog"/> .
149 <section id="sanitycheck">
150 <title>Testing the package</title>
152 Before you upload your package, you should do basic testing on it. At a
153 minimum, you should try the following activities (you'll need to have an older
154 version of the same Debian package around):
159 Install the package and make sure the software works, or upgrade the package
160 from an older version to your new version if a Debian package for it already
166 Run <command>lintian</command> over the package. You can run
167 <command>lintian</command> as follows: <literal>lintian -v
168 <replaceable>package-version</replaceable>.changes</literal>. This will check
169 the source package as well as the binary package. If you don't understand the
170 output that <command>lintian</command> generates, try adding the
171 <literal>-i</literal> switch, which will cause <command>lintian</command> to
172 output a very verbose description of the problem.
175 Normally, a package should <emphasis>not</emphasis> be uploaded if it causes
176 lintian to emit errors (they will start with <literal>E</literal>).
179 For more information on <command>lintian</command>, see <xref
180 linkend="lintian"/> .
185 Optionally run <xref linkend="debdiff"/> to analyze changes from an older
186 version, if one exists.
191 Downgrade the package to the previous version (if one exists) — this tests
192 the <filename>postrm</filename> and <filename>prerm</filename> scripts.
197 Remove the package, then reinstall it.
202 Copy the source package in a different directory and try unpacking it and
203 rebuilding it. This tests if the package relies on existing files outside of
204 it, or if it relies on permissions being preserved on the files shipped inside
211 <section id="sourcelayout">
212 <title>Layout of the source package</title>
214 There are two types of Debian source packages:
219 the so-called <literal>native</literal> packages, where there is no
220 distinction between the original sources and the patches applied for Debian
225 the (more common) packages where there's an original source tarball file
226 accompanied by another file that contains the patches applied for Debian
231 For the native packages, the source package includes a Debian source control
232 file (<literal>.dsc</literal>) and the source tarball
233 (<literal>.tar.gz</literal>). A source package of a non-native package
234 includes a Debian source control file, the original source tarball
235 (<literal>.orig.tar.gz</literal>) and the Debian patches
236 (<literal>.diff.gz</literal>).
239 Whether a package is native or not is determined when it is built by
240 <citerefentry> <refentrytitle>dpkg-buildpackage</refentrytitle>
241 <manvolnum>1</manvolnum> </citerefentry>. The rest of this section relates
242 only to non-native packages.
245 The first time a version is uploaded which corresponds to a particular upstream
246 version, the original source tar file should be uploaded and included in the
247 <filename>.changes</filename> file. Subsequently, this very same tar file
248 should be used to build the new diffs and <filename>.dsc</filename> files, and
249 will not need to be re-uploaded.
252 By default, <command>dpkg-genchanges</command> and
253 <command>dpkg-buildpackage</command> will include the original source tar file
254 if and only if the Debian revision part of the source version number is 0 or 1,
255 indicating a new upstream version. This behavior may be modified by using
256 <literal>-sa</literal> to always include it or <literal>-sd</literal> to always
260 If no original source is included in the upload, the original source tar-file
261 used by <command>dpkg-source</command> when constructing the
262 <filename>.dsc</filename> file and diff to be uploaded
263 <emphasis>must</emphasis> be byte-for-byte identical with the one already in
267 Please notice that, in non-native packages, permissions on files that are not
268 present in the .orig.tar.gz will not be preserved, as diff does not store file
269 permissions in the patch.
273 <section id="distribution">
274 <title>Picking a distribution</title>
276 Each upload needs to specify which distribution the package is intended for.
277 The package build process extracts this information from the first line of the
278 <filename>debian/changelog</filename> file and places it in the
279 <literal>Distribution</literal> field of the <literal>.changes</literal> file.
282 There are several possible values for this field: <literal>stable</literal>,
283 <literal>unstable</literal>, <literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal> and
284 <literal>experimental</literal>. Normally, packages are uploaded into
285 <literal>unstable</literal>.
288 Actually, there are two other possible distributions: <literal>stable-security
289 </literal> and <literal>testing-security</literal>, but read
290 <xref linkend="bug-security"/> for more information on those.
293 It is not possible to upload a package into several distributions at the same
296 <section id="upload-stable">
297 <title>Special case: uploads to the <literal>stable</literal> and
298 <literal>oldstable</literal> distributions</title>
300 Uploading to <literal>stable</literal> means that the package will transfered
301 to the <literal>proposed-updates-new</literal> queue for review by the stable
302 release managers, and if approved will be installed in
303 <filename>stable-proposed-updates</filename> directory of the Debian archive.
304 From there, it will be included in <literal>stable</literal> with the next
308 To ensure that your upload will be accepted, you should discuss the changes
309 with the stable release team before you upload. For that, send a mail to
310 the &email-debian-release; mailing list, including the patch you want to
311 apply to the package version currently in <literal>stable</literal>. Always
312 be verbose and detailed in your changelog entries for uploads to the
313 <literal>stable</literal> distribution.
316 Extra care should be taken when uploading to <literal>stable</literal>.
317 Basically, a package should only be uploaded to <literal>stable</literal> if
318 one of the following happens:
323 a truly critical functionality problem
328 the package becomes uninstallable
333 a released architecture lacks the package
338 In the past, uploads to <literal>stable</literal> were used to address
339 security problems as well. However, this practice is deprecated, as uploads
340 used for Debian security advisories are automatically copied to the appropriate
341 <filename>proposed-updates</filename> archive when the advisory is released.
342 See <xref linkend="bug-security"/> for detailed information on handling
343 security problems. If the security teams deems the problem to be too
344 benign to be fixed through a <literal>DSA</literal>, the stable release
345 managers are usually willing to include your fix nonetheless in a regular
346 upload to <literal>stable</literal>.
349 Changing anything else in the package that isn't important is discouraged,
350 because even trivial fixes can cause bugs later on.
353 Packages uploaded to <literal>stable</literal> need to be compiled on systems
354 running <literal>stable</literal>, so that their dependencies are limited to
355 the libraries (and other packages) available in <literal>stable</literal>;
356 for example, a package uploaded to <literal>stable</literal> that depends on
357 a library package that only exists in <literal>unstable</literal> will be
358 rejected. Making changes to dependencies of other packages (by messing with
359 <literal>Provides</literal> or <literal>shlibs</literal> files), possibly
360 making those other packages uninstallable, is strongly discouraged.
363 Uploads to the <literal>oldstable</literal> distributions are possible as
364 long as it hasn't been archived. The same rules as for <literal>stable
369 <section id="upload-t-p-u">
370 <title>Special case: uploads to <literal>testing/testing-proposed-updates</literal></title>
372 Please see the information in the <link linkend="t-p-u">testing
373 section</link> for details.
379 <section id="upload">
380 <title>Uploading a package</title>
381 <section id="upload-ftp-master">
382 <title>Uploading to <literal>ftp-master</literal></title>
384 To upload a package, you should upload the files (including the signed changes
385 and dsc-file) with anonymous ftp to <literal>&ftp-master-host;</literal> in
387 url="ftp://&ftp-master-host;&upload-queue;">&upload-queue;</ulink>.
388 To get the files processed there, they need to be signed with a key in the
389 Debian Developers keyring or the Debian Maintainers keyring
390 (see <ulink url="&url-wiki-dm;"></ulink>).
393 Please note that you should transfer the changes file last. Otherwise, your
394 upload may be rejected because the archive maintenance software will parse the
395 changes file and see that not all files have been uploaded.
398 You may also find the Debian packages <xref linkend="dupload"/> or <xref
399 linkend="dput"/> useful when uploading packages. These handy programs help
400 automate the process of uploading packages into Debian.
403 For removing packages, please see the README file in that ftp directory, and
404 the Debian package <xref linkend="dcut"/> .
408 <section id="delayed-incoming">
409 <title>Delayed uploads</title>
412 It is sometimes useful to upload a package immediately, but to want this
413 package to arrive in the archive only a few days later. For example,
414 when preparing a <link linkend="nmu">Non-maintainer Upload</link>,
415 you might want to give the maintainer a few days to react.
419 An upload to the delayed directory keeps the package in
420 <ulink url="http://ftp-master.debian.org/deferred.html">
421 the deferred uploads queue"</ulink>.
422 When the specified waiting time is over, the package is moved into
423 the regular incoming directory for processing.
424 This is done through automatic uploading to
425 <literal>&ftp-master-host;</literal> in upload-directory
426 <literal>DELAYED/[012345678]-day</literal>. 0-day is uploaded
427 multiple times per day to <literal>&ftp-master-host;</literal>.
430 With dput, you can use the <literal>--delayed <replaceable>DELAY</replaceable></literal>
431 parameter to put the package into one of the queues.
435 <section id="s5.6.4">
436 <title>Security uploads</title>
438 Do <emphasis role="strong">NOT</emphasis> upload a package to the security
439 upload queue (<literal>oldstable-security</literal>, <literal>stable-security
440 </literal>, etc.) without prior authorization from the security team. If the
441 package does not exactly meet the team's requirements, it will cause many
442 problems and delays in dealing with the unwanted upload. For details, please
443 see section <xref linkend="bug-security"/> .
447 <section id="s5.6.5">
448 <title>Other upload queues</title>
450 The scp queues on <literal>&ftp-master-host;</literal>, and <literal>
451 security.debian.org</literal> are mostly unusable due to the login restrictions
455 The anonymous queues on ftp.uni-erlangen.de and ftp.uk.debian.org are currently
456 down. Work is underway to resurrect them.
459 The queues on master.debian.org, samosa.debian.org, master.debian.or.jp, and
460 ftp.chiark.greenend.org.uk are down permanently, and will not be resurrected.
464 <section id="upload-notification">
465 <title>Notification that a new package has been installed</title>
467 The Debian archive maintainers are responsible for handling package uploads.
468 For the most part, uploads are automatically handled on a daily basis by the
469 archive maintenance tools, <command>katie</command>. Specifically, updates to
470 existing packages to the <literal>unstable</literal> distribution are handled
471 automatically. In other cases, notably new packages, placing the uploaded
472 package into the distribution is handled manually. When uploads are handled
473 manually, the change to the archive may take up to a month to occur. Please
477 In any case, you will receive an email notification indicating that the package
478 has been added to the archive, which also indicates which bugs will be closed
479 by the upload. Please examine this notification carefully, checking if any
480 bugs you meant to close didn't get triggered.
483 The installation notification also includes information on what section the
484 package was inserted into. If there is a disparity, you will receive a
485 separate email notifying you of that. Read on below.
488 Note that if you upload via queues, the queue daemon software will also send
489 you a notification by email.
495 <section id="override-file">
496 <title>Specifying the package section, subsection and priority</title>
498 The <filename>debian/control</filename> file's <literal>Section</literal> and
499 <literal>Priority</literal> fields do not actually specify where the file will
500 be placed in the archive, nor its priority. In order to retain the overall
501 integrity of the archive, it is the archive maintainers who have control over
502 these fields. The values in the <filename>debian/control</filename> file are
506 The archive maintainers keep track of the canonical sections and priorities for
507 packages in the <literal>override file</literal>. If there is a disparity
508 between the <literal>override file</literal> and the package's fields as
509 indicated in <filename>debian/control</filename>, then you will receive an
510 email noting the divergence when the package is installed into the archive.
511 You can either correct your <filename>debian/control</filename> file for your
512 next upload, or else you may wish to make a change in the <literal>override
516 To alter the actual section that a package is put in, you need to first make
517 sure that the <filename>debian/control</filename> file in your package is
518 accurate. Next, send an email &email-override; or submit a
519 bug against <systemitem role="package">ftp.debian.org</systemitem> requesting
520 that the section or priority for your package be changed from the old section
521 or priority to the new one. Be sure to explain your reasoning.
524 For more information about <literal>override files</literal>, see
525 <citerefentry> <refentrytitle>dpkg-scanpackages</refentrytitle>
526 <manvolnum>1</manvolnum> </citerefentry> and <ulink
527 url="&url-bts-devel;#maintincorrect"></ulink>.
530 Note that the <literal>Section</literal> field describes both the section as
531 well as the subsection, which are described in <xref
532 linkend="archive-sections"/> . If the section is main, it should be omitted.
533 The list of allowable subsections can be found in <ulink
534 url="&url-debian-policy;ch-archive.html#s-subsections"></ulink>.
538 <section id="bug-handling">
539 <title>Handling bugs</title>
541 Every developer has to be able to work with the Debian <ulink
542 url="&url-bts;">bug tracking system</ulink>. This includes
543 knowing how to file bug reports properly (see <xref linkend="submit-bug"/> ),
544 how to update them and reorder them, and how to process and close them.
547 The bug tracking system's features are described in the <ulink
548 url="&url-bts-devel;">BTS documentation for
549 developers</ulink>. This includes closing bugs, sending followup messages,
550 assigning severities and tags, marking bugs as forwarded, and other issues.
553 Operations such as reassigning bugs to other packages, merging separate bug
554 reports about the same issue, or reopening bugs when they are prematurely
555 closed, are handled using the so-called control mail server. All of the
556 commands available on this server are described in the <ulink
557 url="&url-bts-control;">BTS control server
558 documentation</ulink>.
560 <section id="bug-monitoring">
561 <title>Monitoring bugs</title>
563 If you want to be a good maintainer, you should periodically check the <ulink
564 url="&url-bts;">Debian bug tracking system (BTS)</ulink> for
565 your packages. The BTS contains all the open bugs against your packages. You
566 can check them by browsing this page:
567 <literal>http://&bugs-host;/<replaceable>yourlogin</replaceable>@debian.org</literal>.
570 Maintainers interact with the BTS via email addresses at
571 <literal>&bugs-host;</literal>. Documentation on available
572 commands can be found at <ulink url="&url-bts;"></ulink>, or,
573 if you have installed the <systemitem role="package">doc-debian</systemitem>
574 package, you can look at the local files &file-bts-docs;.
577 Some find it useful to get periodic reports on open bugs. You can add a cron
578 job such as the following if you want to get a weekly email outlining all the
579 open bugs against your packages:
582 # ask for weekly reports of bugs in my packages
586 Replace <replaceable>address</replaceable> with your official Debian maintainer
591 <section id="bug-answering">
592 <title>Responding to bugs</title>
594 When responding to bugs, make sure that any discussion you have about bugs is
595 sent both to the original submitter of the bug, and to the bug itself (e.g.,
596 <email>123@&bugs-host;</email>). If you're writing a new mail and you
597 don't remember the submitter email address, you can use the
598 <email>123-submitter@&bugs-host;</email> email to contact the submitter
599 <emphasis>and</emphasis> to record your mail within the bug log (that means you
600 don't need to send a copy of the mail to <email>123@&bugs-host;</email>).
603 If you get a bug which mentions FTBFS, this means Fails to build from source.
604 Porters frequently use this acronym.
607 Once you've dealt with a bug report (e.g. fixed it), mark it as
608 <literal>done</literal> (close it) by sending an explanation message to
609 <email>123-done@&bugs-host;</email>. If you're fixing a bug by changing
610 and uploading the package, you can automate bug closing as described in <xref
611 linkend="upload-bugfix"/> .
614 You should <emphasis>never</emphasis> close bugs via the bug server
615 <literal>close</literal> command sent to &email-bts-control;.
616 If you do so, the original submitter will not receive any information about why
621 <section id="bug-housekeeping">
622 <title>Bug housekeeping</title>
624 As a package maintainer, you will often find bugs in other packages or have
625 bugs reported against your packages which are actually bugs in other packages.
626 The bug tracking system's features are described in the <ulink
627 url="&url-bts-devel;">BTS documentation for Debian
628 developers</ulink>. Operations such as reassigning, merging, and tagging bug
629 reports are described in the <ulink
630 url="&url-bts-control;">BTS control server
631 documentation</ulink>. This section contains some guidelines for managing your
632 own bugs, based on the collective Debian developer experience.
635 Filing bugs for problems that you find in other packages is one of the civic
636 obligations of maintainership, see <xref linkend="submit-bug"/> for details.
637 However, handling the bugs in your own packages is even more important.
640 Here's a list of steps that you may follow to handle a bug report:
642 <orderedlist numeration="arabic">
645 Decide whether the report corresponds to a real bug or not. Sometimes users
646 are just calling a program in the wrong way because they haven't read the
647 documentation. If you diagnose this, just close the bug with enough
648 information to let the user correct their problem (give pointers to the good
649 documentation and so on). If the same report comes up again and again you may
650 ask yourself if the documentation is good enough or if the program shouldn't
651 detect its misuse in order to give an informative error message. This is an
652 issue that may need to be brought up with the upstream author.
655 If the bug submitter disagrees with your decision to close the bug, they may
656 reopen it until you find an agreement on how to handle it. If you don't find
657 any, you may want to tag the bug <literal>wontfix</literal> to let people know
658 that the bug exists but that it won't be corrected. If this situation is
659 unacceptable, you (or the submitter) may want to require a decision of the
660 technical committee by reassigning the bug to <systemitem
661 role="package">tech-ctte</systemitem> (you may use the clone command of the BTS
662 if you wish to keep it reported against your package). Before doing so, please
663 read the <ulink url="&url-tech-ctte;">recommended
669 If the bug is real but it's caused by another package, just reassign the bug to
670 the right package. If you don't know which package it should be reassigned to,
671 you should ask for help on <link linkend="irc-channels">IRC</link> or
672 on &email-debian-devel;. Please inform the maintainer(s) of the package
673 you reassign the bug to, for example by Cc:ing the message that does the
674 reassign to <email>packagename@packages.debian.org</email> and explaining
675 your reasons in that mail. Please note that a simple reassignment is
676 <emphasis>not</emphasis> e-mailed to the maintainers of the package
677 being reassigned to, so they won't know about it until they look at
678 a bug overview for their packages.
681 If the bug affects the operation of your package, please consider
682 cloning the bug and reassigning the clone to the package that really
683 causes the behavior. Otherwise, the bug will not be shown in your
684 package's bug list, possibly causing users to report the same bug over
685 and over again. You should block "your" bug with the reassigned, cloned
686 bug to document the relationship.
691 Sometimes you also have to adjust the severity of the bug so that it matches
692 our definition of the severity. That's because people tend to inflate the
693 severity of bugs to make sure their bugs are fixed quickly. Some bugs may even
694 be dropped to wishlist severity when the requested change is just cosmetic.
699 If the bug is real but the same problem has already been reported by someone
700 else, then the two relevant bug reports should be merged into one using the
701 merge command of the BTS. In this way, when the bug is fixed, all of the
702 submitters will be informed of this. (Note, however, that emails sent to one
703 bug report's submitter won't automatically be sent to the other report's
704 submitter.) For more details on the technicalities of the merge command and its
705 relative, the unmerge command, see the BTS control server documentation.
710 The bug submitter may have forgotten to provide some information, in which case
711 you have to ask them for the required information. You may use the
712 <literal>moreinfo</literal> tag to mark the bug as such. Moreover if you can't
713 reproduce the bug, you tag it <literal>unreproducible</literal>. Anyone who
714 can reproduce the bug is then invited to provide more information on how to
715 reproduce it. After a few months, if this information has not been sent by
716 someone, the bug may be closed.
721 If the bug is related to the packaging, you just fix it. If you are not able
722 to fix it yourself, then tag the bug as <literal>help</literal>. You can also
723 ask for help on &email-debian-devel; or
724 &email-debian-qa;. If it's an upstream problem, you have to
725 forward it to the upstream author. Forwarding a bug is not enough, you have to
726 check at each release if the bug has been fixed or not. If it has, you just
727 close it, otherwise you have to remind the author about it. If you have the
728 required skills you can prepare a patch that fixes the bug and send it to the
729 author at the same time. Make sure to send the patch to the BTS and to tag the
730 bug as <literal>patch</literal>.
735 If you have fixed a bug in your local copy, or if a fix has been committed to
736 the CVS repository, you may tag the bug as <literal>pending</literal> to let
737 people know that the bug is corrected and that it will be closed with the next
738 upload (add the <literal>closes:</literal> in the
739 <filename>changelog</filename>). This is particularly useful if you are
740 several developers working on the same package.
745 Once a corrected package is available in the archive, the bug should be
746 closed indicating the version in which it was fixed. This can be done
747 automatically, read <xref linkend="upload-bugfix"/>.
753 <section id="upload-bugfix">
754 <title>When bugs are closed by new uploads</title>
756 As bugs and problems are fixed in your packages, it is your responsibility as
757 the package maintainer to close these bugs. However, you should not close a
758 bug until the package which fixes the bug has been accepted into the Debian
759 archive. Therefore, once you get notification that your updated package has
760 been installed into the archive, you can and should close the bug in the BTS.
761 Also, the bug should be closed with the correct version.
764 However, it's possible to avoid having to manually close bugs after the upload
765 — just list the fixed bugs in your <filename>debian/changelog</filename>
766 file, following a certain syntax, and the archive maintenance software will
767 close the bugs for you. For example:
770 acme-cannon (3.1415) unstable; urgency=low
772 * Frobbed with options (closes: Bug#98339)
773 * Added safety to prevent operator dismemberment, closes: bug#98765,
775 * Added man page. Closes: #98725.
778 Technically speaking, the following Perl regular expression describes how bug
779 closing changelogs are identified:
782 /closes:\s*(?:bug)?\#\s*\d+(?:,\s*(?:bug)?\#\s*\d+)*/ig
785 We prefer the <literal>closes: #<replaceable>XXX</replaceable></literal>
786 syntax, as it is the most concise entry and the easiest to integrate with the
787 text of the <filename>changelog</filename>. Unless specified different by the
788 <replaceable>-v</replaceable>-switch to <command>dpkg-buildpackage</command>,
789 only the bugs closed in the most recent changelog entry are closed (basically,
790 exactly the bugs mentioned in the changelog-part in the
791 <filename>.changes</filename> file are closed).
794 Historically, uploads identified as <link linkend="nmu">Non-maintainer
795 upload (NMU)</link> were tagged <literal>fixed</literal> instead of being
796 closed, but that practice was ceased with the advent of version-tracking. The
797 same applied to the tag <literal>fixed-in-experimental</literal>.
800 If you happen to mistype a bug number or forget a bug in the changelog entries,
801 don't hesitate to undo any damage the error caused. To reopen wrongly closed
802 bugs, send a <literal>reopen <replaceable>XXX</replaceable></literal> command
803 to the bug tracking system's control address,
804 &email-bts-control;. To close any remaining bugs that were
805 fixed by your upload, email the <filename>.changes</filename> file to
806 <email>XXX-done@&bugs-host;</email>, where <replaceable>XXX</replaceable>
807 is the bug number, and put Version: YYY and an empty line as the first two
808 lines of the body of the email, where <replaceable>YYY</replaceable> is the
809 first version where the bug has been fixed.
812 Bear in mind that it is not obligatory to close bugs using the changelog as
813 described above. If you simply want to close bugs that don't have anything to
814 do with an upload you made, do it by emailing an explanation to
815 <email>XXX-done@&bugs-host;</email>. Do <emphasis
816 role="strong">not</emphasis> close bugs in the changelog entry of a version if
817 the changes in that version of the package don't have any bearing on the bug.
820 For general information on how to write your changelog entries, see <xref
821 linkend="bpp-debian-changelog"/> .
825 <section id="bug-security">
826 <title>Handling security-related bugs</title>
828 Due to their sensitive nature, security-related bugs must be handled carefully.
829 The Debian Security Team exists to coordinate this activity, keeping track of
830 outstanding security problems, helping maintainers with security problems or
831 fixing them themselves, sending security advisories, and maintaining
832 <literal>security.debian.org</literal>.
835 When you become aware of a security-related bug in a Debian package, whether or
836 not you are the maintainer, collect pertinent information about the problem,
837 and promptly contact the security team at
838 &email-security-team; as soon as possible. <emphasis
839 role="strong">DO NOT UPLOAD</emphasis> any packages for <literal>stable</literal>
840 without contacting the team. Useful information includes, for example:
845 Which versions of the package are known to be affected by the bug. Check each
846 version that is present in a supported Debian release, as well as
847 <literal>testing</literal> and <literal>unstable</literal>.
852 The nature of the fix, if any is available (patches are especially helpful)
857 Any fixed packages that you have prepared yourself (send only the
858 <literal>.diff.gz</literal> and <literal>.dsc</literal> files and read <xref
859 linkend="bug-security-building"/> first)
864 Any assistance you can provide to help with testing (exploits, regression
870 Any information needed for the advisory (see <xref
871 linkend="bug-security-advisories"/> )
875 <para>As the maintainer of the package, you have the responsibility to
876 maintain it, even in the stable release. You are in the best position
877 to evaluate patches and test updated packages, so please see the sections
878 below on how to prepare packages for the Security Team to handle.</para>
880 <section id="bug-security-tracker">
881 <title>The Security Tracker</title>
883 The security team maintains a central database, the
884 <ulink url="http://security-tracker.debian.net/">Debian Security Tracker</ulink>.
885 This contains all public information that is known about security issues:
886 which packages and versions are affected or fixed, and thus whether stable,
887 testing and/or unstable are vulnerable. Information that is still confidential
888 is not added to the tracker.
891 You can search it for a specific issue, but also on package name. Look
892 for your package to see which issues are still open. If you can, please provide
893 more information about those issues, or help to address them in your package.
894 Instructions are on the tracker web pages.
898 <section id="bug-security-confidentiality">
899 <title>Confidentiality</title>
901 Unlike most other activities within Debian, information about security issues
902 must sometimes be kept private for a time. This allows software distributors
903 to coordinate their disclosure in order to minimize their users' exposure.
904 Whether this is the case depends on the nature of the problem and corresponding
905 fix, and whether it is already a matter of public knowledge.
908 There are several ways developers can learn of a security problem:
913 they notice it on a public forum (mailing list, web site, etc.)
918 someone files a bug report
923 someone informs them via private email
928 In the first two cases, the information is public and it is important to have a
929 fix as soon as possible. In the last case, however, it might not be public
930 information. In that case there are a few possible options for dealing with
936 If the security exposure is minor, there is sometimes no need to keep the
937 problem a secret and a fix should be made and released.
942 If the problem is severe, it is preferable to share the information with other
943 vendors and coordinate a release. The security team keeps in contact with the
944 various organizations and individuals and can take care of that.
949 In all cases if the person who reports the problem asks that it not be
950 disclosed, such requests should be honored, with the obvious exception of
951 informing the security team in order that a fix may be produced for a stable
952 release of Debian. When sending confidential information to the security team,
953 be sure to mention this fact.
956 Please note that if secrecy is needed you may not upload a fix to
957 <literal>unstable</literal> (or
958 anywhere else, such as a public CVS repository). It is not sufficient to
959 obfuscate the details of the change, as the code itself is public, and can (and
960 will) be examined by the general public.
963 There are two reasons for releasing information even though secrecy is
964 requested: the problem has been known for a while, or the problem or exploit
968 The Security Team has a PGP-key to enable encrypted communication about
969 sensitive issues. See the <ulink url="http://www.debian.org/security/faq.en.html#contact">Security Team FAQ</ulink> for details.
973 <section id="bug-security-advisories">
974 <title>Security Advisories</title>
976 Security advisories are only issued for the current, released stable
977 distribution, and <emphasis>not</emphasis> for <literal>testing</literal>
978 or <literal>unstable</literal>. When released, advisories are sent to the
979 &email-debian-security-announce; mailing list and posted on
980 <ulink url="&url-debian-security-advisories;">the security web
981 page</ulink>. Security advisories are written and posted by the security team.
982 However they certainly do not mind if a maintainer can supply some of the
983 information for them, or write part of the text. Information that should be in
984 an advisory includes:
989 A description of the problem and its scope, including:
994 The type of problem (privilege escalation, denial of service, etc.)
999 What privileges may be gained, and by whom (if any)
1004 How it can be exploited
1009 Whether it is remotely or locally exploitable
1014 How the problem was fixed
1019 This information allows users to assess the threat to their systems.
1024 Version numbers of affected packages
1029 Version numbers of fixed packages
1034 Information on where to obtain the updated packages (usually from the Debian
1040 References to upstream advisories, <ulink
1041 url="http://cve.mitre.org">CVE</ulink> identifiers, and any other information
1042 useful in cross-referencing the vulnerability
1048 <section id="bug-security-building">
1049 <title>Preparing packages to address security issues</title>
1051 One way that you can assist the security team in their duties is to provide
1052 them with fixed packages suitable for a security advisory for the stable Debian
1056 When an update is made to the stable release, care must be taken to avoid
1057 changing system behavior or introducing new bugs. In order to do this, make as
1058 few changes as possible to fix the bug. Users and administrators rely on the
1059 exact behavior of a release once it is made, so any change that is made might
1060 break someone's system. This is especially true of libraries: make sure you
1061 never change the API or ABI, no matter how small the change.
1064 This means that moving to a new upstream version is not a good solution.
1065 Instead, the relevant changes should be back-ported to the version present in
1066 the current stable Debian release. Generally, upstream maintainers are willing
1067 to help if needed. If not, the Debian security team may be able to help.
1070 In some cases, it is not possible to back-port a security fix, for example when
1071 large amounts of source code need to be modified or rewritten. If this
1072 happens, it may be necessary to move to a new upstream version. However, this
1073 is only done in extreme situations, and you must always coordinate that with
1074 the security team beforehand.
1077 Related to this is another important guideline: always test your changes. If
1078 you have an exploit available, try it and see if it indeed succeeds on the
1079 unpatched package and fails on the fixed package. Test other, normal actions
1080 as well, as sometimes a security fix can break seemingly unrelated features in
1084 Do <emphasis role="strong">NOT</emphasis> include any changes in your package
1085 which are not directly related to fixing the vulnerability. These will only
1086 need to be reverted, and this wastes time. If there are other bugs in your
1087 package that you would like to fix, make an upload to proposed-updates in the
1088 usual way, after the security advisory is issued. The security update
1089 mechanism is not a means for introducing changes to your package which would
1090 otherwise be rejected from the stable release, so please do not attempt to do
1094 Review and test your changes as much as possible. Check the differences from
1095 the previous version repeatedly (<command>interdiff</command> from the
1096 <systemitem role="package">patchutils</systemitem> package and
1097 <command>debdiff</command> from <systemitem
1098 role="package">devscripts</systemitem> are useful tools for this, see <xref
1099 linkend="debdiff"/> ).
1102 Be sure to verify the following items:
1107 <emphasis role="strong">Target the right distribution</emphasis>
1108 in your <filename>debian/changelog</filename>.
1109 For <literal>stable</literal> this is <literal>stable-security</literal> and
1110 for testing this is <literal>testing-security</literal>, and for the previous
1111 stable release, this is <literal>oldstable-security</literal>. Do not target
1112 <replaceable>distribution</replaceable><literal>-proposed-updates</literal> or
1113 <literal>stable</literal>!
1118 The upload should have <emphasis role="strong">urgency=high</emphasis>.
1123 Make descriptive, meaningful changelog entries. Others will rely on them to
1124 determine whether a particular bug was fixed. Add <literal>closes:</literal>
1125 statements for any <emphasis role="strong">Debian bugs</emphasis> filed.
1126 Always include an external reference, preferably a <emphasis role="strong">CVE
1127 identifier</emphasis>, so that it can be cross-referenced. However, if a CVE
1128 identifier has not yet been assigned, do not wait for it but continue the
1129 process. The identifier can be cross-referenced later.
1134 Make sure the <emphasis role="strong">version number</emphasis> is proper.
1135 It must be greater than the current package, but less than package versions in
1136 later distributions. If in doubt, test it with <literal>dpkg
1137 --compare-versions</literal>. Be careful not to re-use a version number that
1138 you have already used for a previous upload, or one that conflicts with a
1139 binNMU. The convention is to append
1140 <literal>+</literal><replaceable>codename</replaceable><literal>1</literal>, e.g.
1141 <literal>1:2.4.3-4+etch1</literal>, of course increasing 1 for any subsequent
1147 Unless the upstream source has been uploaded to <literal>security.debian.org
1148 </literal> before (by a previous security update), build the upload <emphasis
1149 role="strong">with full upstream source</emphasis> (<literal>dpkg-buildpackage
1150 -sa</literal>). If there has been a previous upload to
1151 <literal>security.debian.org</literal> with the same upstream version, you may
1152 upload without upstream source (<literal> dpkg-buildpackage -sd</literal>).
1157 Be sure to use the <emphasis role="strong">exact same
1158 <filename>*.orig.tar.gz</filename></emphasis> as used in the
1159 normal archive, otherwise it is not possible to move the security fix into the
1160 main archives later.
1165 Build the package on a <emphasis role="strong">clean system</emphasis> which only
1166 has packages installed from the distribution you are building for. If you do not
1167 have such a system yourself, you can use a debian.org machine (see
1168 <xref linkend="server-machines"/> ) or setup a chroot (see
1169 <xref linkend="pbuilder"/> and <xref linkend="debootstrap"/> ).
1175 <section id="bug-security-upload">
1176 <title>Uploading the fixed package</title>
1178 Do <emphasis role="strong">NOT</emphasis> upload a package to the security
1179 upload queue (<literal>oldstable-security</literal>, <literal>stable-security
1180 </literal>, etc.) without prior authorization from the security team. If the
1181 package does not exactly meet the team's requirements, it will cause many
1182 problems and delays in dealing with the unwanted upload.
1185 Do <emphasis role="strong">NOT</emphasis> upload your fix to <literal>
1186 proposed-updates</literal> without coordinating with the security team.
1187 Packages from <literal>security.debian.org</literal> will be copied into
1188 the <literal>proposed-updates</literal> directory automatically. If a package
1189 with the same or a higher version number is already installed into the archive,
1190 the security update will be rejected by the archive system. That way, the
1191 stable distribution will end up without a security update for this package
1195 Once you have created and tested the new package and it has been approved by
1196 the security team, it needs to be uploaded so that it can be installed in the
1197 archives. For security uploads, the place to upload to is
1198 <literal>ftp://security-master.debian.org/pub/SecurityUploadQueue/</literal> .
1201 Once an upload to the security queue has been accepted, the package will
1202 automatically be built for all architectures and stored for verification by
1206 Uploads which are waiting for acceptance or verification are only accessible by
1207 the security team. This is necessary since there might be fixes for security
1208 problems that cannot be disclosed yet.
1211 If a member of the security team accepts a package, it will be installed on
1212 <literal>security.debian.org</literal> as well as proposed for the proper
1213 <replaceable>distribution</replaceable><literal>-proposed-updates</literal>
1214 on <literal>&ftp-master-host;</literal>.
1222 <section id="archive-manip">
1223 <title>Moving, removing, renaming, adopting, and orphaning packages</title>
1225 Some archive manipulation operations are not automated in the Debian upload
1226 process. These procedures should be manually followed by maintainers. This
1227 chapter gives guidelines on what to do in these cases.
1229 <section id="moving-pkgs">
1230 <title>Moving packages</title>
1232 Sometimes a package will change its section. For instance, a package from the
1233 `non-free' section might be GPL'd in a later version, in which case the package
1234 should be moved to `main' or `contrib'.<footnote><para> See the <ulink
1235 url="&url-debian-policy;">Debian Policy Manual</ulink> for
1236 guidelines on what section a package belongs in. </para> </footnote>
1239 If you need to change the section for one of your packages, change the package
1240 control information to place the package in the desired section, and re-upload
1241 the package (see the <ulink
1242 url="&url-debian-policy;">Debian Policy Manual</ulink> for
1243 details). You must ensure that you include the
1244 <filename>.orig.tar.gz</filename> in your upload (even if you are not uploading
1245 a new upstream version), or it will not appear in the new section together with
1246 the rest of the package. If your new section is valid, it will be moved
1247 automatically. If it does not, then contact the ftpmasters in order to
1248 understand what happened.
1251 If, on the other hand, you need to change the <literal>subsection</literal>
1252 of one of your packages (e.g., ``devel'', ``admin''), the procedure is slightly
1253 different. Correct the subsection as found in the control file of the package,
1254 and re-upload that. Also, you'll need to get the override file updated, as
1255 described in <xref linkend="override-file"/> .
1259 <section id="removing-pkgs">
1260 <title>Removing packages</title>
1262 If for some reason you want to completely remove a package (say, if it is an
1263 old compatibility library which is no longer required), you need to file a bug
1264 against <literal>ftp.debian.org</literal> asking that the package be removed;
1265 as all bugs, this bug should normally have normal severity.
1266 The bug title should be in the form <literal>RM: <replaceable>package
1267 </replaceable> <replaceable>[architecture list]</replaceable> --
1268 <replaceable>reason</replaceable></literal>, where <replaceable>package</replaceable>
1269 is the package to be removed and <replaceable>reason</replaceable> is a
1270 short summary of the reason for the removal request.
1271 <replaceable>[architecture list]</replaceable> is optional and only needed
1272 if the removal request only applies to some architectures, not all. Note
1273 that the <command>reportbug</command> will create a title conforming
1274 to these rules when you use it to report a bug against the <literal>
1275 ftp.debian.org</literal> pseudo-package.
1279 If you want to remove a package you maintain, you should note this in
1280 the bug title by prepending <literal>ROM</literal> (Request Of Maintainer).
1281 There are several other standard acronyms used in the reasoning for a package
1282 removal, see <ulink url="http://&ftp-master-host;/removals.html"></ulink>
1283 for a complete list. That page also provides a convenient overview of
1284 pending removal requests.
1288 Note that removals can only be done for the <literal>unstable
1289 </literal>, <literal>experimental</literal> and <literal>stable
1290 </literal> distribution. Packages are not removed from
1291 <literal>testing</literal> directly. Rather, they will be removed
1292 automatically after the package has been removed from
1293 <literal>unstable</literal> and no package in <literal>testing
1294 </literal> depends on it.
1297 There is one exception when an explicit removal request is not necessary: If a
1298 (source or binary) package is an orphan, it will be removed semi-automatically.
1299 For a binary-package, this means if there is no longer any source package
1300 producing this binary package; if the binary package is just no longer produced
1301 on some architectures, a removal request is still necessary. For a
1302 source-package, this means that all binary packages it refers to have been
1303 taken over by another source package.
1306 In your removal request, you have to detail the reasons justifying the request.
1307 This is to avoid unwanted removals and to keep a trace of why a package has
1308 been removed. For example, you can provide the name of the package that
1309 supersedes the one to be removed.
1312 Usually you only ask for the removal of a package maintained by yourself. If
1313 you want to remove another package, you have to get the approval of its
1314 maintainer. Should the package be orphaned and thus have no maintainer,
1315 you should first discuss the removal request on &email-debian-qa;. If
1316 there is a consensus that the package should be removed, you should
1317 reassign and retitle the <literal>O:</literal> bug filed against the
1318 <literal>wnpp</literal> package instead of filing a new bug as
1322 Further information relating to these and other package removal related topics
1323 may be found at <ulink url="http://wiki.debian.org/ftpmaster_Removals"></ulink>
1324 and <ulink url="&url-debian-qa;howto-remove.html"></ulink>.
1327 If in doubt concerning whether a package is disposable, email
1328 &email-debian-devel; asking for opinions. Also of interest is
1329 the <command>apt-cache</command> program from the <systemitem
1330 role="package">apt</systemitem> package. When invoked as <literal>apt-cache
1331 showpkg <replaceable>package</replaceable></literal>, the program will show
1332 details for <replaceable>package</replaceable>, including reverse depends.
1333 Other useful programs include <literal>apt-cache rdepends</literal>,
1334 <command>apt-rdepends</command>, <command>build-rdeps</command> (in the
1335 <systemitem role="package">devscripts</systemitem> package) and
1336 <command>grep-dctrl</command>. Removal of
1337 orphaned packages is discussed on &email-debian-qa;.
1340 Once the package has been removed, the package's bugs should be handled. They
1341 should either be reassigned to another package in the case where the actual
1342 code has evolved into another package (e.g. <literal>libfoo12</literal> was
1343 removed because <literal>libfoo13</literal> supersedes it) or closed if the
1344 software is simply no longer part of Debian.
1345 When closing the bugs,
1346 to avoid marking the bugs as fixed in versions of the packages
1347 in previous Debian releases, they should be marked as fixed
1348 in the version <literal><most-recent-version-ever-in-Debian>+rm</literal>.
1350 <section id="s5.9.2.1">
1351 <title>Removing packages from <filename>Incoming</filename></title>
1353 In the past, it was possible to remove packages from
1354 <filename>incoming</filename>. However, with the introduction of the new
1355 incoming system, this is no longer possible. Instead, you have to upload a new
1356 revision of your package with a higher version than the package you want to
1357 replace. Both versions will be installed in the archive but only the higher
1358 version will actually be available in <literal>unstable</literal> since the
1359 previous version will immediately be replaced by the higher. However, if you
1360 do proper testing of your packages, the need to replace a package should not
1361 occur too often anyway.
1367 <section id="s5.9.3">
1368 <title>Replacing or renaming packages</title>
1370 When the upstream maintainers for one of your packages chose to
1371 rename their software (or you made a mistake naming your package),
1372 you should follow a two-step process to rename it. In the first
1373 step, change the <filename>debian/control</filename> file to
1374 reflect the new name and to replace, provide and conflict with the
1375 obsolete package name (see the <ulink url="&url-debian-policy;">
1376 Debian Policy Manual</ulink> for details). Please note that you
1377 should only add a <literal>Provides</literal> relation if all
1378 packages depending on the obsolete package name continue to work
1379 after the renaming. Once you've uploaded the package and the package
1380 has moved into the archive, file a bug against <literal>
1381 ftp.debian.org</literal> asking to remove the package with the
1382 obsolete name (see <xref linkend="removing-pkgs"/>). Do not forget
1383 to properly reassign the package's bugs at the same time.
1386 At other times, you may make a mistake in constructing your package and wish to
1387 replace it. The only way to do this is to increase the version number and
1388 upload a new version. The old version will be expired in the usual manner.
1389 Note that this applies to each part of your package, including the sources: if
1390 you wish to replace the upstream source tarball of your package, you will need
1391 to upload it with a different version. An easy possibility is to replace
1392 <filename>foo_1.00.orig.tar.gz</filename> with
1393 <filename>foo_1.00+0.orig.tar.gz</filename>. This restriction gives each file
1394 on the ftp site a unique name, which helps to ensure consistency across the
1399 <section id="orphaning">
1400 <title>Orphaning a package</title>
1402 If you can no longer maintain a package, you need to inform others, and see
1403 that the package is marked as orphaned. You should set the package maintainer
1404 to <literal>Debian QA Group &orphan-address;</literal> and
1405 submit a bug report against the pseudo package <systemitem
1406 role="package">wnpp</systemitem>. The bug report should be titled <literal>O:
1407 <replaceable>package</replaceable> -- <replaceable>short
1408 description</replaceable></literal> indicating that the package is now
1409 orphaned. The severity of the bug should be set to
1410 <literal>normal</literal>; if the package has a priority of standard or
1411 higher, it should be set to important. If you feel it's necessary, send a copy
1412 to &email-debian-devel; by putting the address in the
1413 X-Debbugs-CC: header of the message (no, don't use CC:, because that way the
1414 message's subject won't indicate the bug number).
1417 If you just intend to give the package away, but you can keep maintainership
1418 for the moment, then you should instead submit a bug against <systemitem
1419 role="package">wnpp</systemitem> and title it <literal>RFA:
1420 <replaceable>package</replaceable> -- <replaceable>short
1421 description</replaceable></literal>. <literal>RFA</literal> stands for
1422 <literal>Request For Adoption</literal>.
1425 More information is on the <ulink url="&url-wnpp;">WNPP
1430 <section id="adopting">
1431 <title>Adopting a package</title>
1433 A list of packages in need of a new maintainer is available in the <ulink
1434 url="&url-wnpp;">Work-Needing and Prospective Packages
1435 list (WNPP)</ulink>. If you wish to take over maintenance of any of the
1436 packages listed in the WNPP, please take a look at the aforementioned page for
1437 information and procedures.
1440 It is not OK to simply take over a package that you feel is neglected — that
1441 would be package hijacking. You can, of course, contact the current maintainer
1442 and ask them if you may take over the package. If you have reason to believe a
1443 maintainer has gone AWOL (absent without leave), see <xref linkend="mia-qa"/> .
1446 Generally, you may not take over the package without the assent of the current
1447 maintainer. Even if they ignore you, that is still not grounds to take over a
1448 package. Complaints about maintainers should be brought up on the developers'
1449 mailing list. If the discussion doesn't end with a positive conclusion, and
1450 the issue is of a technical nature, consider bringing it to the attention of
1451 the technical committee (see the <ulink
1452 url="&url-tech-ctte;">technical committee web page</ulink> for
1456 If you take over an old package, you probably want to be listed as the
1457 package's official maintainer in the bug system. This will happen
1458 automatically once you upload a new version with an updated
1459 <literal>Maintainer:</literal> field, although it can take a few hours after
1460 the upload is done. If you do not expect to upload a new version for a while,
1461 you can use <xref linkend="pkg-tracking-system"/> to get the bug reports.
1462 However, make sure that the old maintainer has no problem with the fact that
1463 they will continue to receive the bugs during that time.
1469 <section id="porting">
1470 <title>Porting and being ported</title>
1472 Debian supports an ever-increasing number of architectures. Even if you are
1473 not a porter, and you don't use any architecture but one, it is part of your
1474 duty as a maintainer to be aware of issues of portability. Therefore, even if
1475 you are not a porter, you should read most of this chapter.
1478 Porting is the act of building Debian packages for architectures that are
1479 different from the original architecture of the package maintainer's binary
1480 package. It is a unique and essential activity. In fact, porters do most of
1481 the actual compiling of Debian packages. For instance, when a maintainer
1482 uploads a (portable) source packages with binaries for the <literal>i386
1483 </literal> architecture, it will be built for each of the other architectures,
1484 amounting to &number-of-arches; more builds.
1486 <section id="kind-to-porters">
1487 <title>Being kind to porters</title>
1489 Porters have a difficult and unique task, since they are required to deal with
1490 a large volume of packages. Ideally, every source package should build right
1491 out of the box. Unfortunately, this is often not the case. This section
1492 contains a checklist of ``gotchas'' often committed by Debian maintainers —
1493 common problems which often stymie porters, and make their jobs unnecessarily
1497 The first and most important thing is to respond quickly to bug or issues
1498 raised by porters. Please treat porters with courtesy, as if they were in fact
1499 co-maintainers of your package (which, in a way, they are). Please be tolerant
1500 of succinct or even unclear bug reports; do your best to hunt down whatever the
1504 By far, most of the problems encountered by porters are caused by
1505 <emphasis>packaging bugs</emphasis> in the source packages. Here is a
1506 checklist of things you should check or be aware of.
1508 <orderedlist numeration="arabic">
1511 Make sure that your <literal>Build-Depends</literal> and
1512 <literal>Build-Depends-Indep</literal> settings in
1513 <filename>debian/control</filename> are set properly. The best way to validate
1514 this is to use the <systemitem role="package">debootstrap</systemitem> package
1515 to create an <literal>unstable</literal> chroot environment (see <xref
1516 linkend="debootstrap"/> ).
1517 Within that chrooted environment, install the <systemitem
1518 role="package">build-essential</systemitem> package and any package
1519 dependencies mentioned in <literal>Build-Depends</literal> and/or
1520 <literal>Build-Depends-Indep</literal>. Finally, try building your package
1521 within that chrooted environment. These steps can be automated by the use of
1522 the <command>pbuilder</command> program which is provided by the package of the
1523 same name (see <xref linkend="pbuilder"/> ).
1526 If you can't set up a proper chroot, <command>dpkg-depcheck</command> may be of
1527 assistance (see <xref linkend="dpkg-depcheck"/> ).
1530 See the <ulink url="&url-debian-policy;">Debian Policy
1531 Manual</ulink> for instructions on setting build dependencies.
1536 Don't set architecture to a value other than <literal>all</literal> or
1537 <literal>any</literal> unless you really mean it. In too many cases,
1538 maintainers don't follow the instructions in the <ulink
1539 url="&url-debian-policy;">Debian Policy Manual</ulink>. Setting your
1540 architecture to only one architecture (such as <literal>i386</literal>
1541 or <literal>amd64</literal>) is usually incorrect.
1546 Make sure your source package is correct. Do <literal>dpkg-source -x
1547 <replaceable>package</replaceable>.dsc</literal> to make sure your source
1548 package unpacks properly. Then, in there, try building your package from
1549 scratch with <command>dpkg-buildpackage</command>.
1554 Make sure you don't ship your source package with the
1555 <filename>debian/files</filename> or <filename>debian/substvars</filename>
1556 files. They should be removed by the <literal>clean</literal> target of
1557 <filename>debian/rules</filename>.
1562 Make sure you don't rely on locally installed or hacked configurations or
1563 programs. For instance, you should never be calling programs in
1564 <filename>/usr/local/bin</filename> or the like. Try not to rely on programs
1565 being setup in a special way. Try building your package on another machine,
1566 even if it's the same architecture.
1571 Don't depend on the package you're building being installed already (a sub-case
1572 of the above issue). There are, of course, exceptions to this rule, but be
1573 aware that any case like this needs manual bootstrapping and cannot be done
1574 by automated package builders.
1579 Don't rely on the compiler being a certain version, if possible. If not, then
1580 make sure your build dependencies reflect the restrictions, although you are
1581 probably asking for trouble, since different architectures sometimes
1582 standardize on different compilers.
1587 Make sure your debian/rules contains separate <literal>binary-arch</literal>
1588 and <literal>binary-indep</literal> targets, as the Debian Policy Manual
1589 requires. Make sure that both targets work independently, that is, that you
1590 can call the target without having called the other before. To test this,
1591 try to run <command>dpkg-buildpackage -B</command>.
1597 <section id="porter-guidelines">
1598 <title>Guidelines for porter uploads</title>
1600 If the package builds out of the box for the architecture to be ported to, you
1601 are in luck and your job is easy. This section applies to that case; it
1602 describes how to build and upload your binary package so that it is properly
1603 installed into the archive. If you do have to patch the package in order to
1604 get it to compile for the other architecture, you are actually doing a source
1605 NMU, so consult <xref linkend="nmu-guidelines"/> instead.
1608 For a porter upload, no changes are being made to the source. You do not need
1609 to touch any of the files in the source package. This includes
1610 <filename>debian/changelog</filename>.
1613 The way to invoke <command>dpkg-buildpackage</command> is as
1614 <literal>dpkg-buildpackage -B
1615 -m<replaceable>porter-email</replaceable></literal>. Of course, set
1616 <replaceable>porter-email</replaceable> to your email address. This will do a
1617 binary-only build of only the architecture-dependent portions of the package,
1618 using the <literal>binary-arch</literal> target in <filename>debian/rules
1622 If you are working on a Debian machine for your porting efforts and you need to
1623 sign your upload locally for its acceptance in the archive, you can run
1624 <command>debsign</command> on your <filename>.changes</filename> file to have
1625 it signed conveniently, or use the remote signing mode of
1626 <command>dpkg-sig</command>.
1628 <section id="binary-only-nmu">
1629 <title>Recompilation or binary-only NMU</title>
1631 Sometimes the initial porter upload is problematic because the environment in
1632 which the package was built was not good enough (outdated or obsolete library,
1633 bad compiler, ...). Then you may just need to recompile it in an updated
1634 environment. However, you have to bump the version number in this case, so
1635 that the old bad package can be replaced in the Debian archive
1636 (<command>dak</command> refuses to install new packages if they don't have a
1637 version number greater than the currently available one).
1640 You have to make sure that your binary-only NMU doesn't render the package
1641 uninstallable. This could happen when a source package generates
1642 arch-dependent and arch-independent packages that have inter-dependencies
1643 generated using dpkg's substitution variable <literal>$(Source-Version)
1647 Despite the required modification of the changelog, these are called
1648 binary-only NMUs — there is no need in this case to trigger all other
1649 architectures to consider themselves out of date or requiring recompilation.
1652 Such recompilations require special ``magic'' version numbering, so that the
1653 archive maintenance tools recognize that, even though there is a new Debian
1654 version, there is no corresponding source update. If you get this wrong, the
1655 archive maintainers will reject your upload (due to lack of corresponding
1659 The ``magic'' for a recompilation-only NMU is triggered by using a suffix
1660 appended to the package version number, following the form <literal>
1661 b<replaceable>number</replaceable></literal>.
1662 For instance, if the latest version you are recompiling against was version
1663 <literal>2.9-3</literal>, your binary-only NMU should carry a version of
1664 <literal>2.9-3+b1</literal>. If the latest version was <literal>3.4+b1
1665 </literal> (i.e, a native package with a previous recompilation NMU), your
1666 binary-only NMU should have a version number of <literal>3.4+b2</literal>.
1667 <footnote><para> In the past, such NMUs used the third-level number on the
1668 Debian part of the revision to denote their recompilation-only status;
1669 however, this syntax was ambiguous with native packages and did not allow
1670 proper ordering of recompile-only NMUs, source NMUs, and security NMUs on
1671 the same package, and has therefore been abandoned in favor of this new syntax.
1675 Similar to initial porter uploads, the correct way of invoking
1676 <command>dpkg-buildpackage</command> is <literal>dpkg-buildpackage -B</literal>
1677 to only build the architecture-dependent parts of the package.
1681 <section id="source-nmu-when-porter">
1682 <title>When to do a source NMU if you are a porter</title>
1684 Porters doing a source NMU generally follow the guidelines found in <xref
1685 linkend="nmu"/> , just like non-porters. However, it is expected that the wait
1686 cycle for a porter's source NMU is smaller than for a non-porter, since porters
1687 have to cope with a large quantity of packages. Again, the situation varies
1688 depending on the distribution they are uploading to. It also varies whether
1689 the architecture is a candidate for inclusion into the next stable release; the
1690 release managers decide and announce which architectures are candidates.
1693 If you are a porter doing an NMU for <literal>unstable</literal>, the above
1694 guidelines for porting should be followed, with two variations. Firstly, the
1695 acceptable waiting period — the time between when the bug is submitted to
1696 the BTS and when it is OK to do an NMU — is seven days for porters working
1697 on the <literal>unstable</literal> distribution. This period can be shortened
1698 if the problem is critical and imposes hardship on the porting effort, at the
1699 discretion of the porter group. (Remember, none of this is Policy, just
1700 mutually agreed upon guidelines.) For uploads to <literal>stable</literal> or
1701 <literal>testing </literal>, please coordinate with the appropriate release
1705 Secondly, porters doing source NMUs should make sure that the bug they submit
1706 to the BTS should be of severity <literal>serious</literal> or greater. This
1707 ensures that a single source package can be used to compile every supported
1708 Debian architecture by release time. It is very important that we have one
1709 version of the binary and source package for all architectures in order to
1710 comply with many licenses.
1713 Porters should try to avoid patches which simply kludge around bugs in the
1714 current version of the compile environment, kernel, or libc. Sometimes such
1715 kludges can't be helped. If you have to kludge around compiler bugs and the
1716 like, make sure you <literal>#ifdef</literal> your work properly; also,
1717 document your kludge so that people know to remove it once the external
1718 problems have been fixed.
1721 Porters may also have an unofficial location where they can put the results of
1722 their work during the waiting period. This helps others running the port have
1723 the benefit of the porter's work, even during the waiting period. Of course,
1724 such locations have no official blessing or status, so buyer beware.
1730 <section id="porter-automation">
1731 <title>Porting infrastructure and automation</title>
1733 There is infrastructure and several tools to help automate package porting.
1734 This section contains a brief overview of this automation and porting to these
1735 tools; see the package documentation or references for full information.
1737 <section id="s5.10.3.1">
1738 <title>Mailing lists and web pages</title>
1740 Web pages containing the status of each port can be found at <ulink
1741 url="&url-debian-ports;"></ulink>.
1744 Each port of Debian has a mailing list. The list of porting mailing lists can
1745 be found at <ulink url="&url-debian-port-lists;"></ulink>. These
1746 lists are used to coordinate porters, and to connect the users of a given port
1751 <section id="s5.10.3.2">
1752 <title>Porter tools</title>
1754 Descriptions of several porting tools can be found in <xref
1755 linkend="tools-porting"/> .
1759 <section id="wanna-build">
1760 <title><systemitem role="package">wanna-build</systemitem></title>
1762 The <systemitem role="package">wanna-build</systemitem> system is used as a
1763 distributed, client-server build distribution system. It is usually used in
1764 conjunction with build daemons running the <systemitem role="package">buildd
1765 </systemitem> program. <literal>Build daemons</literal> are ``slave'' hosts
1766 which contact the central <systemitem role="package"> wanna-build</systemitem>
1767 system to receive a list of packages that need to be built.
1770 <systemitem role="package">wanna-build</systemitem> is not yet available as a
1771 package; however, all Debian porting efforts are using it for automated
1772 package building. The tool used to do the actual package builds, <systemitem
1773 role="package">sbuild</systemitem> is available as a package, see its
1774 description in <xref linkend="sbuild"/> . Please note that the packaged
1775 version is not the same as the one used on build daemons, but it is close
1776 enough to reproduce problems.
1779 Most of the data produced by <systemitem role="package">wanna-build
1780 </systemitem> which is generally useful to porters is available on the
1781 web at <ulink url="&url-buildd;"></ulink>. This data includes nightly
1782 updated statistics, queueing information and logs for build attempts.
1785 We are quite proud of this system, since it has so many possible uses.
1786 Independent development groups can use the system for different sub-flavors of
1787 Debian, which may or may not really be of general interest (for instance, a
1788 flavor of Debian built with <command>gcc</command> bounds checking). It will
1789 also enable Debian to recompile entire distributions quickly.
1792 The wanna-build team, in charge of the buildds,
1793 can be reached at <literal>debian-wb-team@lists.debian.org</literal>.
1794 To determine who (wanna-build team, release team) and how (mail, BTS)
1795 to contact, refer to <ulink url="&url-wb-team;"></ulink>.
1799 When requesting binNMUs or give-backs (retries after a failed build),
1800 please use the format described at <ulink url="&url-release-wb;"/>.
1807 <section id="packages-arch-specific">
1808 <title>When your package is <emphasis>not</emphasis> portable</title>
1810 Some packages still have issues with building and/or working on some of the
1811 architectures supported by Debian, and cannot be ported at all, or not within a
1812 reasonable amount of time. An example is a package that is SVGA-specific (only
1813 available for <literal>i386</literal> and <literal>amd64</literal>), or uses
1814 other hardware-specific features not supported on all architectures.
1817 In order to prevent broken packages from being uploaded to the archive, and
1818 wasting buildd time, you need to do a few things:
1823 First, make sure your package <emphasis>does</emphasis> fail to build on
1824 architectures that it cannot support. There are a few ways to achieve this.
1825 The preferred way is to have a small testsuite during build time that will test
1826 the functionality, and fail if it doesn't work. This is a good idea anyway, as
1827 this will prevent (some) broken uploads on all architectures, and also will
1828 allow the package to build as soon as the required functionality is available.
1831 Additionally, if you believe the list of supported architectures is pretty
1832 constant, you should change <literal>any</literal> to a list of supported
1833 architectures in <filename>debian/control</filename>. This way, the build will
1834 fail also, and indicate this to a human reader without actually trying.
1839 In order to prevent autobuilders from needlessly trying to build your package,
1840 it must be included in <filename>packages-arch-specific</filename>, a list used
1841 by the <command>wanna-build</command> script. The current version is available
1843 url="&url-cvsweb;srcdep/Packages-arch-specific?cvsroot=dak"></ulink>;
1844 please see the top of the file for whom to contact for changes.
1849 Please note that it is insufficient to only add your package to
1850 Packages-arch-specific without making it fail to build on unsupported
1851 architectures: A porter or any other person trying to build your package might
1852 accidently upload it without noticing it doesn't work. If in the past some
1853 binary packages were uploaded on unsupported architectures, request their
1854 removal by filing a bug against <systemitem
1855 role="package">ftp.debian.org</systemitem>
1862 <title>Non-Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)</title>
1864 Every package has one or more maintainers. Normally, these are the people who
1865 work on and upload new versions of the package. In some situations, it is
1866 useful that other developers can upload a new version as well, for example if
1867 they want to fix a bug in a package they don't maintain, when the maintainer
1868 needs help to respond to issues. Such uploads are called
1869 <emphasis>Non-Maintainer Uploads (NMU)</emphasis>.
1872 <section id="nmu-guidelines">
1873 <title>When and how to do an NMU</title>
1876 Before doing an NMU, consider the following questions:
1881 Does your NMU really fix bugs? Fixing cosmetic issues or changing the
1882 packaging style in NMUs is discouraged.
1887 Did you give enough time to the maintainer? When was the bug reported to the
1888 BTS? Being busy for a week or two isn't unusual. Is the bug so severe that it
1889 needs to be fixed right now, or can it wait a few more days?
1894 How confident are you about your changes? Please remember the Hippocratic Oath:
1895 "Above all, do no harm." It is better to leave a package with an open grave bug
1896 than applying a non-functional patch, or one that hides the bug instead of
1897 resolving it. If you are not 100% sure of what you did, it might be a good idea
1898 to seek advice from others. Remember that if you break something in your NMU,
1899 many people will be very unhappy about it.
1904 Have you clearly expressed your intention to NMU, at least in the BTS?
1905 It is also a good idea to try to contact the
1906 maintainer by other means (private email, IRC).
1911 If the maintainer is usually active and responsive, have you tried to contact
1912 him? In general it should be considered preferable that a maintainer takes care
1913 of an issue himself and that he is given the chance to review and correct your
1914 patch, because he can be expected to be more aware of potential issues which an
1915 NMUer might miss. It is often a better use of everyone's time if the maintainer
1916 is given an opportunity to upload a fix on their own.
1921 When doing an NMU, you must first make sure that your intention to NMU is
1922 clear. Then, you must send a patch with the differences between the
1923 current package and your proposed NMU to the BTS. The
1924 <literal>nmudiff</literal> script in the <literal>devscripts</literal> package
1928 While preparing the patch, you should better be aware of any package-specific
1929 practices that the maintainer might be using. Taking them into account reduces
1930 the burden of getting your changes integrated back in the normal package
1931 workflow and thus increases the possibilities that that will happen. A good
1932 place where to look for for possible package-specific practices is
1933 <ulink url="&url-debian-policy;ch-source.html#s-readmesource"><literal>debian/README.source</literal></ulink>.
1936 Unless you have an excellent reason not to do so, you must then give some time
1937 to the maintainer to react (for example, by uploading to the
1938 <literal>DELAYED</literal> queue). Here are some recommended values to use for delays:
1943 Upload fixing only release-critical bugs older than 7 days: 2 days
1948 Upload fixing only release-critical and important bugs: 5 days
1959 Those delays are only examples. In some cases, such as uploads fixing security
1960 issues, or fixes for trivial bugs that blocking a transition, it is desirable
1961 that the fixed package reaches <literal>unstable</literal> sooner.
1965 Sometimes, release managers decide to allow NMUs with shorter delays for a
1966 subset of bugs (e.g release-critical bugs older than 7 days). Also, some
1967 maintainers list themselves in the <ulink url="&url-low-threshold-nmu;">Low
1968 Threshold NMU list</ulink>, and accept that NMUs are uploaded without delay. But
1969 even in those cases, it's still a good idea to give the maintainer a few days
1970 to react before you upload, especially if the patch wasn't available in the BTS
1971 before, or if you know that the maintainer is generally active.
1975 After you upload an NMU, you are responsible for the possible problems that you
1976 might have introduced. You must keep an eye on the package (subscribing to the
1977 package on the PTS is a good way to achieve this).
1981 This is not a license to perform NMUs thoughtlessly. If you NMU when it is
1982 clear that the maintainers are active and would have acknowledged a patch in a
1983 timely manner, or if you ignore the recommendations of this document, your
1984 upload might be a cause of conflict with the maintainer.
1985 You should always be prepared to
1986 defend the wisdom of any NMU you perform on its own merits.
1990 <section id="nmu-changelog">
1991 <title>NMUs and debian/changelog</title>
1993 Just like any other (source) upload, NMUs must add an entry to
1994 <literal>debian/changelog</literal>, telling what has changed with this
1995 upload. The first line of this entry must explicitely mention that this upload is an NMU, e.g.:
1998 * Non-maintainer upload.
2002 The way to version NMUs differs for native and non-native packages.
2005 If the package is a native package (without a debian revision in the version number),
2006 the version must be the version of the last maintainer upload, plus
2007 <literal>+nmu<replaceable>X</replaceable></literal>, where
2008 <replaceable>X</replaceable> is a counter starting at <literal>1</literal>.
2010 the last upload was also an NMU, the counter should be increased. For example,
2011 if the current version is <literal>1.5</literal>, then an NMU would get
2012 version <literal>1.5+nmu1</literal>.
2015 If the package is a not a native package, you should add a minor version number
2016 to the debian revision part of the version number (the portion after the last
2017 hyphen). This extra number must start at 1. For example,
2018 if the current version is <literal>1.5-2</literal>, then an NMU would get
2019 version <literal>1.5-2.1</literal>. If a new upstream version
2020 is packaged in the NMU, the debian revision is set to <literal>0</literal>, for
2021 example <literal>1.6-0.1</literal>.
2024 In both cases, if the last upload was also an NMU, the counter should
2025 be increased. For example, if the current version is
2026 <literal>1.5+nmu3</literal> (a native package which has already been
2027 NMUed), the NMU would get version <literal>1.5+nmu4</literal>. .
2030 A special versioning scheme is needed to avoid disrupting the maintainer's
2031 work, since using an integer for the Debian revision will potentially
2032 conflict with a maintainer upload already in preparation at the time of an
2033 NMU, or even one sitting in the ftp NEW queue.
2035 benefit of making it visually clear that a package in the archive was not made
2036 by the official maintainer.
2040 If you upload a package to testing or stable, you sometimes need to "fork" the
2041 version number tree. This is the case for security uploads, for example. For
2042 this, a version of the form
2043 <literal>+deb<replaceable>XY</replaceable>u<replaceable>Z</replaceable></literal>
2044 should be used, where <replaceable>X</replaceable> and
2045 <replaceable>Y</replaceable> are the major and minor release numbers, and
2046 <replaceable>Z</replaceable> is a counter starting at <literal>1</literal>.
2047 When the release number is not yet known (often the case for
2048 <literal>testing</literal>, at the beginning of release cycles), the lowest
2049 release number higher than the last stable release number must be used. For
2050 example, while Etch (Debian 4.0) is stable, a security NMU to stable for a
2051 package at version <literal>1.5-3</literal> would have version
2052 <literal>1.5-3+deb40u1</literal>, whereas a security NMU to Lenny would get
2053 version <literal>1.5-3+deb50u1</literal>. After the release of Lenny, security
2054 uploads to the <literal>testing</literal> distribution will be versioned
2055 <literal>+deb51uZ</literal>, until it is known whether that release will be
2056 Debian 5.1 or Debian 6.0 (if that becomes the case, uploads will be versioned
2057 as <literal>+deb60uZ</literal>.
2061 <section id="nmu-delayed">
2062 <title>Using the <literal>DELAYED/</literal> queue</title>
2065 Having to wait for a response after you request permission to NMU is
2066 inefficient, because it costs the NMUer a context switch to come back to the
2068 The <literal>DELAYED</literal> queue (see <xref linkend="delayed-incoming"/>)
2069 allows the developer doing the NMU to perform all the necessary tasks at the
2070 same time. For instance, instead of telling the maintainer that you will
2072 package in 7 days, you should upload the package to
2073 <literal>DELAYED/7</literal> and tell the maintainer that he has 7 days to
2074 react. During this time, the maintainer can ask you to delay the upload some
2075 more, or cancel your upload.
2079 The <literal>DELAYED</literal> queue should not be used to put additional
2080 pressure on the maintainer. In particular, it's important that you are
2081 available to cancel or delay the upload before the delay expires since the
2082 maintainer cannot cancel the upload himself.
2086 If you make an NMU to <literal>DELAYED</literal> and the maintainer updates
2087 his package before the delay expires, your upload will be rejected because a
2088 newer version is already available in the archive.
2089 Ideally, the maintainer will take care to include your proposed changes (or
2090 at least a solution for the problems they address) in that upload.
2095 <section id="nmu-maintainer">
2096 <title>NMUs from the maintainer's point of view</title>
2099 When someone NMUs your package, this means they want to help you to keep it in
2100 good shape. This gives users fixed packages faster. You
2101 can consider asking the NMUer to become a co-maintainer of the package.
2102 Receiving an NMU on a package is not a bad
2103 thing; it just means that the package is interesting enough for other people to
2108 To acknowledge an NMU, include its changes and changelog entry in your next
2109 maintainer upload. If you do not acknowledge the NMU by including the
2110 NMU changelog entry in your changelog, the bugs will remain closed in the
2111 BTS but will be listed as affecting your maintainer version of the package.
2116 <section id="nmu-binnmu">
2117 <title>Source NMUs vs Binary-only NMUs (binNMUs)</title>
2120 The full name of an NMU is <emphasis>source NMU</emphasis>. There is also
2121 another type, namely the <emphasis>binary-only NMU</emphasis>, or
2122 <emphasis>binNMU</emphasis>. A binNMU is also a package upload by someone
2123 other than the package's maintainer. However, it is a binary-only upload.
2127 When a library (or other dependency) is updated, the packages using it may need
2128 to be rebuilt. Since no changes to the source are needed, the same source
2133 BinNMUs are usually triggered on the buildds by wanna-build.
2134 An entry is added to debian/changelog,
2135 explaining why the upload was needed and increasing the version number as
2136 described in <xref linkend="binary-only-nmu"/>.
2137 This entry should not be included in the next upload.
2141 Buildds upload packages for their architecture to the archive as binary-only
2142 uploads. Strictly speaking, these are binNMUs. However, they are not normally
2143 called NMU, and they don't add an entry to debian/changelog.
2148 <section id="nmu-qa-upload">
2149 <title>NMUs vs QA uploads</title>
2152 NMUs are uploads of packages by somebody else than their assigned maintainer.
2154 another type of upload where the uploaded package is not yours: QA uploads. QA
2155 uploads are uploads of orphaned packages.
2159 QA uploads are very much like normal maintainer uploads: they may fix anything,
2160 even minor issues; the version numbering is normal, and there is no need to use
2161 a delayed upload. The difference is that you are not listed as the Maintainer
2162 or Uploader for the package. Also, the changelog entry of a QA upload has a
2171 If you want to do an NMU, and it seems that the maintainer is not active, it is
2172 wise to check if the package is orphaned
2173 (this information is displayed on the package's Package Tracking System page).
2174 When doing the first QA upload to an
2175 orphaned package, the maintainer should be set to <literal>Debian QA Group
2176 <packages@qa.debian.org></literal>. Orphaned packages which did
2177 not yet have a QA upload still have their old maintainer set. There is a list
2178 of them at <ulink url="&url-orphaned-not-qa;"/>.
2182 Instead of doing a QA upload, you can also consider adopting the package by
2183 making yourself the maintainer. You don't need permission from anybody to
2184 adopt an orphaned package, you can just set yourself as maintainer and upload
2185 the new version (see <xref linkend="adopting"/>).
2192 <section id="collaborative-maint">
2193 <title>Collaborative maintenance</title>
2195 Collaborative maintenance is a term describing the sharing of Debian package
2196 maintenance duties by several people. This collaboration is almost always a
2197 good idea, since it generally results in higher quality and faster bug fix
2198 turnaround times. It is strongly recommended that packages with a priority of
2199 <literal>Standard</literal> or which are part of the base set have
2203 Generally there is a primary maintainer and one or more co-maintainers. The
2204 primary maintainer is the person whose name is listed in the
2205 <literal>Maintainer</literal> field of the <filename>debian/control</filename>
2206 file. Co-maintainers are all the other maintainers,
2207 usually listed in the <literal>Uploaders</literal> field of the
2208 <filename>debian/control</filename> file.
2211 In its most basic form, the process of adding a new co-maintainer is quite
2217 Setup the co-maintainer with access to the sources you build the package from.
2218 Generally this implies you are using a network-capable version control system,
2219 such as <command>CVS</command> or <command>Subversion</command>. Alioth (see
2220 <xref linkend="alioth"/> ) provides such tools, amongst others.
2225 Add the co-maintainer's correct maintainer name and address to the
2226 <literal>Uploaders</literal> field in the first paragraph of the
2227 <filename>debian/control</filename> file.
2230 Uploaders: John Buzz <jbuzz@debian.org>, Adam Rex <arex@debian.org>
2235 Using the PTS (<xref linkend="pkg-tracking-system"/> ), the co-maintainers
2236 should subscribe themselves to the appropriate source package.
2241 Another form of collaborative maintenance is team maintenance, which is
2242 recommended if you maintain several packages with the same group of developers.
2243 In that case, the Maintainer and Uploaders field of each package must be
2244 managed with care. It is recommended to choose between one of the two
2247 <orderedlist numeration="arabic">
2250 Put the team member mainly responsible for the package in the Maintainer field.
2251 In the Uploaders, put the mailing list address, and the team members who care
2257 Put the mailing list address in the Maintainer field. In the Uploaders field,
2258 put the team members who care for the package. In this case, you must make
2259 sure the mailing list accept bug reports without any human interaction (like
2260 moderation for non-subscribers).
2265 In any case, it is a bad idea to automatically put all team members in the
2266 Uploaders field. It clutters the Developer's Package Overview listing (see
2267 <xref linkend="ddpo"/> ) with packages one doesn't really care for, and creates
2268 a false sense of good maintenance.
2272 <section id="testing">
2273 <title>The testing distribution</title>
2274 <section id="testing-basics">
2275 <title>Basics</title>
2277 Packages are usually installed into the <literal>testing</literal> distribution
2278 after they have undergone some degree of <literal>testing</literal> in
2279 <literal>unstable</literal>.
2282 They must be in sync on all architectures and mustn't have dependencies that
2283 make them uninstallable; they also have to have generally no known
2284 release-critical bugs at the time they're installed into <literal>testing
2285 </literal>. This way, <literal>testing</literal> should always be close to
2286 being a release candidate. Please see below for details.
2290 <section id="testing-unstable">
2291 <title>Updates from unstable</title>
2293 The scripts that update the <literal>testing</literal> distribution are run
2294 twice each day, right after the installation of the updated packages; these
2295 scripts are called <literal>britney</literal>. They generate the
2296 <filename>Packages</filename> files for the <literal>testing</literal>
2297 distribution, but they do so in an intelligent manner; they try to avoid any
2298 inconsistency and to use only non-buggy packages.
2301 The inclusion of a package from <literal>unstable</literal> is conditional on
2307 The package must have been available in <literal>unstable</literal> for 2, 5
2308 or 10 days, depending on the urgency (high, medium or low). Please note that
2309 the urgency is sticky, meaning that the highest urgency uploaded since the
2310 previous <literal>testing</literal> transition is taken into account. Those
2311 delays may be doubled during a freeze, or <literal>testing</literal>
2312 transitions may be switched off altogether;
2317 It must not have new release-critical bugs (RC bugs affecting the version
2318 available in <literal>unstable</literal>, but not affecting the version in
2319 <literal>testing</literal>);
2324 It must be available on all architectures on which it has previously been built
2325 in <literal>unstable</literal>. <xref linkend="dak-ls"/> may be of interest
2326 to check that information;
2331 It must not break any dependency of a package which is already available in
2332 <literal>testing</literal>;
2337 The packages on which it depends must either be available in
2338 <literal>testing</literal> or they must be accepted into
2339 <literal>testing</literal> at the same time (and they will be if they fulfill
2340 all the necessary criteria);
2345 To find out whether a package is progressing into <literal>testing</literal>
2346 or not, see the <literal>testing</literal> script output on the <ulink
2347 url="&url-testing-maint;">web page of the testing
2348 distribution</ulink>, or use the program <command>grep-excuses</command> which
2349 is in the <systemitem role="package">devscripts</systemitem> package. This
2350 utility can easily be used in a <citerefentry>
2351 <refentrytitle>crontab</refentrytitle> <manvolnum>5</manvolnum> </citerefentry>
2352 to keep yourself informed of the progression of your packages into
2353 <literal>testing</literal>.
2356 The <filename>update_excuses</filename> file does not always give the precise
2357 reason why the package is refused; you may have to find it on your own by
2358 looking for what would break with the inclusion of the package. The <ulink
2359 url="&url-testing-maint;">testing web page</ulink> gives some
2360 more information about the usual problems which may be causing such troubles.
2363 Sometimes, some packages never enter <literal>testing</literal> because the
2364 set of inter-relationship is too complicated and cannot be sorted out by the
2365 scripts. See below for details.
2368 Some further dependency analysis is shown on <ulink
2369 url="http://release.debian.org/migration/"></ulink> — but be warned, this page also
2370 shows build dependencies which are not considered by britney.
2372 <section id="outdated">
2373 <title>out-of-date</title>
2375 <!-- FIXME: better rename this file than document rampant professionalism? -->
2376 For the <literal>testing</literal> migration script, outdated means: There are
2377 different versions in <literal>unstable</literal> for the release architectures
2378 (except for the architectures in fuckedarches; fuckedarches is a list of
2379 architectures that don't keep up (in <filename>update_out.py</filename>), but
2380 currently, it's empty). outdated has nothing whatsoever to do with the
2381 architectures this package has in <literal>testing</literal>.
2384 Consider this example:
2386 <informaltable pgwide="1">
2391 <entry>alpha</entry>
2397 <entry>testing</entry>
2402 <entry>unstable</entry>
2410 The package is out of date on alpha in <literal>unstable</literal>, and will
2411 not go to <literal>testing</literal>. Removing the package would not help at all, the
2412 package is still out of date on <literal>alpha</literal>, and will not
2413 propagate to testing.
2416 However, if ftp-master removes a package in <literal>unstable</literal> (here
2417 on <literal>arm</literal>):
2419 <informaltable pgwide="1">
2424 <entry>alpha</entry>
2426 <entry>hurd-i386</entry>
2431 <entry>testing</entry>
2437 <entry>unstable</entry>
2446 In this case, the package is up to date on all release architectures in
2447 <literal>unstable</literal> (and the extra <literal>hurd-i386</literal>
2448 doesn't matter, as it's not a release architecture).
2451 Sometimes, the question is raised if it is possible to allow packages in that
2452 are not yet built on all architectures: No. Just plainly no. (Except if you
2453 maintain glibc or so.)
2457 <section id="removals">
2458 <title>Removals from testing</title>
2460 Sometimes, a package is removed to allow another package in: This happens only
2461 to allow <emphasis>another</emphasis> package to go in if it's ready in every
2462 other sense. Suppose e.g. that <literal>a</literal> cannot be installed
2463 with the new version of <literal>b</literal>; then <literal>a</literal> may
2464 be removed to allow <literal>b</literal> in.
2467 Of course, there is another reason to remove a package from <literal>testing
2468 </literal>: It's just too buggy (and having a single RC-bug is enough to be
2472 Furthermore, if a package has been removed from <literal>unstable</literal>,
2473 and no package in <literal>testing</literal> depends on it any more, then it
2474 will automatically be removed.
2478 <section id="circular">
2479 <title>circular dependencies</title>
2481 A situation which is not handled very well by britney is if package
2482 <literal>a</literal> depends on the new version of package
2483 <literal>b</literal>, and vice versa.
2486 An example of this is:
2488 <informaltable pgwide="1">
2493 <entry>testing</entry>
2494 <entry>unstable</entry>
2500 <entry>1; depends: b=1</entry>
2501 <entry>2; depends: b=2</entry>
2505 <entry>1; depends: a=1</entry>
2506 <entry>2; depends: a=2</entry>
2512 Neither package <literal>a</literal> nor package <literal>b</literal> is
2513 considered for update.
2516 Currently, this requires some manual hinting from the release team. Please
2517 contact them by sending mail to &email-debian-release; if this
2518 happens to one of your packages.
2522 <section id="s5.13.2.4">
2523 <title>influence of package in testing</title>
2525 Generally, there is nothing that the status of a package in <literal>testing
2526 </literal> means for transition of the next version from <literal>unstable
2527 </literal> to <literal>testing</literal>, with two exceptions:
2528 If the RC-bugginess of the package goes down, it may go in even if it is still
2529 RC-buggy. The second exception is if the version of the package in <literal>
2530 testing</literal> is out of sync on the different arches: Then any arch might
2531 just upgrade to the version of the source package; however, this can happen
2532 only if the package was previously forced through, the arch is in fuckedarches,
2533 or there was no binary package of that arch present in <literal>unstable
2534 </literal> at all during the <literal>testing</literal> migration.
2537 In summary this means: The only influence that a package being in <literal>
2538 testing</literal> has on a new version of the same package is that the new
2539 version might go in easier.
2543 <section id="details">
2544 <title>details</title>
2546 If you are interested in details, this is how britney works:
2549 The packages are looked at to determine whether they are valid candidates.
2550 This gives the update excuses. The most common reasons why a package is not
2551 considered are too young, RC-bugginess, and out of date on some arches. For
2552 this part of britney, the release managers have hammers of various sizes to
2553 force britney to consider a package. (Also, the base freeze is coded in that
2554 part of britney.) (There is a similar thing for binary-only updates, but this
2555 is not described here. If you're interested in that, please peruse the code.)
2558 Now, the more complex part happens: Britney tries to update <literal>testing
2559 </literal> with the valid candidates. For that, britney tries to add each
2560 valid candidate to the testing distribution. If the number of uninstallable
2561 packages in <literal>testing</literal> doesn't increase, the package is
2562 accepted. From that point on, the accepted package is considered to be part
2563 of <literal>testing</literal>, such that all subsequent installability
2564 tests include this package. Hints from the release team are processed
2565 before or after this main run, depending on the exact type.
2568 If you want to see more details, you can look it up on
2569 <filename>merkel:/org/&ftp-debian-org;/testing/update_out/</filename> (or
2570 in <filename>merkel:~aba/testing/update_out</filename> to see a setup with
2571 a smaller packages file). Via web, it's at <ulink
2572 url="http://&ftp-master-host;/testing/update_out_code/"></ulink>
2575 The hints are available via <ulink
2576 url="http://&ftp-master-host;/testing/hints/"></ulink>.
2582 <section id="t-p-u">
2583 <title>Direct updates to testing</title>
2585 The <literal>testing</literal> distribution is fed with packages from
2586 <literal>unstable</literal> according to the rules explained above. However,
2587 in some cases, it is necessary to upload packages built only for <literal>
2588 testing</literal>. For that, you may want to upload to <literal>
2589 testing-proposed-updates</literal>.
2592 Keep in mind that packages uploaded there are not automatically processed, they
2593 have to go through the hands of the release manager. So you'd better have a
2594 good reason to upload there. In order to know what a good reason is in the
2595 release managers' eyes, you should read the instructions that they regularly
2596 give on &email-debian-devel-announce;.
2599 You should not upload to <literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal> when you
2600 can update your packages through <literal>unstable</literal>. If you can't
2601 (for example because you have a newer development version in <literal>unstable
2602 </literal>), you may use this facility, but it is recommended that you ask for
2603 authorization from the release manager first. Even if a package is frozen,
2604 updates through <literal>unstable</literal> are possible, if the upload via
2605 <literal>unstable</literal> does not pull in any new dependencies.
2608 Version numbers are usually selected by adding the codename of the
2609 <literal>testing</literal> distribution and a running number, like
2610 <literal>1.2sarge1</literal> for the first upload through
2611 <literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal> of package version
2612 <literal>1.2</literal>.
2615 Please make sure you didn't miss any of these items in your upload:
2620 Make sure that your package really needs to go through
2621 <literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal>, and can't go through <literal>
2627 Make sure that you included only the minimal amount of changes;
2632 Make sure that you included an appropriate explanation in the changelog;
2637 Make sure that you've written <literal>testing</literal> or
2638 <literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal> into your target distribution;
2643 Make sure that you've built and tested your package in
2644 <literal>testing</literal>, not in <literal>unstable</literal>;
2649 Make sure that your version number is higher than the version in
2650 <literal>testing</literal> and <literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal>,
2651 and lower than in <literal>unstable</literal>;
2656 After uploading and successful build on all platforms, contact the release team
2657 at &email-debian-release; and ask them to approve your upload.
2664 <title>Frequently asked questions</title>
2666 <title>What are release-critical bugs, and how do they get counted?</title>
2668 All bugs of some higher severities are by default considered release-critical;
2669 currently, these are <literal>critical</literal>, <literal>grave</literal> and
2670 <literal>serious</literal> bugs.
2673 Such bugs are presumed to have an impact on the chances that the package will
2674 be released with the <literal>stable</literal> release of Debian: in general,
2675 if a package has open release-critical bugs filed on it, it won't get into
2676 <literal>testing</literal>, and consequently won't be released in <literal>
2680 The <literal>unstable</literal> bug count are all release-critical bugs which
2681 are marked to apply to <replaceable>package</replaceable>/<replaceable>version
2682 </replaceable> combinations that are available in unstable for a release
2683 architecture. The <literal>testing</literal> bug count is defined analogously.
2687 <section id="s5.13.4.2">
2688 <title>How could installing a package into <literal>testing</literal> possibly
2689 break other packages?</title>
2691 The structure of the distribution archives is such that they can only contain
2692 one version of a package; a package is defined by its name. So when the source
2693 package <literal>acmefoo</literal> is installed into <literal>testing</literal>,
2694 along with its binary packages <literal>acme-foo-bin</literal>, <literal>
2695 acme-bar-bin</literal>, <literal>libacme-foo1</literal> and <literal>
2696 libacme-foo-dev</literal>, the old version is removed.
2699 However, the old version may have provided a binary package with an old soname
2700 of a library, such as <literal>libacme-foo0</literal>. Removing the old
2701 <literal>acmefoo</literal> will remove <literal>libacme-foo0</literal>, which
2702 will break any packages which depend on it.
2705 Evidently, this mainly affects packages which provide changing sets of binary
2706 packages in different versions (in turn, mainly libraries). However, it will
2707 also affect packages upon which versioned dependencies have been declared of
2708 the ==, <=, or << varieties.
2711 When the set of binary packages provided by a source package change in this
2712 way, all the packages that depended on the old binaries will have to be updated
2713 to depend on the new binaries instead. Because installing such a source
2714 package into <literal>testing</literal> breaks all the packages that depended on
2715 it in <literal>testing</literal>,
2716 some care has to be taken now: all the depending packages must be updated and
2717 ready to be installed themselves so that they won't be broken, and, once
2718 everything is ready, manual intervention by the release manager or an assistant
2719 is normally required.
2722 If you are having problems with complicated groups of packages like this,
2723 contact &email-debian-devel; or &email-debian-release; for help.
~ianmdlvl / developers-reference.git / blob