<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE chapter PUBLIC "-//OASIS//DTD DocBook XML V4.4//EN"
- "http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xml/4.4/docbookx.dtd">
+ "http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xml/4.4/docbookx.dtd" [
+ <!ENTITY % commondata SYSTEM "common.ent" > %commondata;
+]>
<chapter id="beyond-pkging">
<title>Beyond Packaging</title>
<para>
in other developers' packages improves the quality of Debian.
</para>
<para>
-Read the <ulink url="http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Reporting">instructions for
+Read the <ulink url="&url-bts-report;">instructions for
reporting bugs</ulink> in the Debian <ulink
-url="http://www.debian.org/Bugs/">bug tracking system</ulink>.
+url="&url-bts;">bug tracking system</ulink>.
</para>
<para>
Try to submit the bug from a normal user account at which you are likely to
<para>
Make sure the bug is not already filed against a package. Each package has a
bug list easily reachable at
-<literal>http://bugs.debian.org/<replaceable>packagename</replaceable></literal>
+<literal>http://&bugs-host;/<replaceable>packagename</replaceable></literal>.
Utilities like <citerefentry> <refentrytitle>querybts</refentrytitle>
<manvolnum>1</manvolnum> </citerefentry> can also provide you with this
information (and <command>reportbug</command> will usually invoke
reports that you submitted. Take this opportunity to close those that you
can't reproduce anymore. To find out all the bugs you submitted, you just have
to visit
-<literal>http://bugs.debian.org/from:<replaceable><your-email-addr></replaceable></literal>.
+<literal>http://&bugs-host;/from:<replaceable>your-email-addr</replaceable></literal>.
</para>
<section id="submit-many-bugs">
<title>Reporting lots of bugs at once (mass bug filing)</title>
</para>
<para>
If you report more than 10 bugs on the same topic at once, it is recommended
-that you send a message to <email>debian-devel@lists.debian.org</email>
-describing your intention before submitting the report, and mentioning the fact
-in the subject of your mail. This will allow other developers to verify that
-the bug is a real problem. In addition, it will help prevent a situation in
-which several maintainers start filing the same bug report simultaneously.
+that you send a message to &email-debian-devel; describing
+your intention before submitting the report, and mentioning the fact in the
+subject of your mail. This will allow other developers to verify that the bug
+is a real problem. In addition, it will help prevent a situation in which
+several maintainers start filing the same bug report simultaneously.
</para>
<para>
-Please use the programms <command>dd-list</command> and if appropriate
-<command>whodepends</command> (from the package devscripts) to generate a list
+Please use the programs <command>dd-list</command> and if appropriate
+<command>whodepends</command> (from the package <systemitem role="package">devscripts</systemitem>) to generate a list
of all affected packages, and include the output in your mail to
-<email>debian-devel@lists.debian.org</email>.
+&email-debian-devel;.
</para>
<para>
Note that when sending lots of bugs on the same subject, you should send the
-bug report to <email>maintonly@bugs.debian.org</email> so that the bug report
+bug report to <email>maintonly@&bugs-host;</email> so that the bug report
is not forwarded to the bug distribution mailing list.
</para>
+<section id="usertags">
+<title>Usertags</title>
+<para>
+You may wish to use BTS usertags when submitting bugs across a number of
+packages. Usertags are similar to normal tags such as 'patch' and 'wishlist'
+but differ in that they are user-defined and occupy a namespace that is
+unique to a particular user. This allows multiple sets of developers to
+'usertag' the same bug in different ways without conflicting.
+</para>
+<para>
+To add usertags when filing bugs, specify the <literal>User</literal> and
+<literal>Usertags</literal> pseudo-headers:
+</para>
+<screen>
+To: submit@bugs.debian.org
+Subject: <replaceable>title-of-bug</replaceable>
+
+Package: <replaceable>pkgname</replaceable>
+<replaceable>[ ... ]</replaceable>
+User: <replaceable>email-addr</replaceable>
+Usertags: <replaceable>tag-name [ tag-name ... ]</replaceable>
+
+<replaceable>description-of-bug ...</replaceable>
+</screen>
+<para>
+Note that tags are seperated by spaces and cannot contain underscores. If you
+are filing bugs for a particular group or team it is recommended that you
+set the <literal>User</literal> to an appropriate mailing list after describing
+your intention there.
+</para>
+<para>
+To view bugs tagged with a specific usertag, visit
+<literal>http://&bugs-host;/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=<replaceable>email-addr</replaceable>&tag=<replaceable>tag-name</replaceable></literal>.
+</para>
+</section>
</section>
</section>
Even though there is a dedicated group of people for Quality Assurance, QA
duties are not reserved solely for them. You can participate in this effort by
keeping your packages as bug-free as possible, and as lintian-clean (see <xref
-linkend="lintian"/> ) as possible. If you do not find that possible, then you
+linkend="lintian"/>) as possible. If you do not find that possible, then you
should consider orphaning some of your packages (see <xref
-linkend="orphaning"/> ). Alternatively, you may ask the help of other people
+linkend="orphaning"/>). Alternatively, you may ask the help of other people
in order to catch up with the backlog of bugs that you have (you can ask for
-help on <email>debian-qa@lists.debian.org</email> or
-<email>debian-devel@lists.debian.org</email>). At the same time, you can look
-for co-maintainers (see <xref linkend="collaborative-maint"/> ).
+help on &email-debian-qa; or
+&email-debian-devel;). At the same time, you can look for
+co-maintainers (see <xref linkend="collaborative-maint"/>).
</para>
</section>
<para>
From time to time the QA group organizes bug squashing parties to get rid of as
many problems as possible. They are announced on
-<email>debian-devel-announce@lists.debian.org</email> and the announcement
-explains which area will be the focus of the party: usually they focus on
-release critical bugs but it may happen that they decide to help finish a major
-upgrade (like a new perl version which requires recompilation of all the binary
-modules).
+&email-debian-devel-announce; and the announcement explains
+which area will be the focus of the party: usually they focus on release
+critical bugs but it may happen that they decide to help finish a major upgrade
+(like a new <command>perl</command> version which requires recompilation of all
+the binary modules).
</para>
<para>
The rules for non-maintainer uploads differ during the parties because the
<para>
Looking up the email address of the maintainer for the package can be
distracting. Fortunately, there is a simple email alias,
-<literal><package>@packages.debian.org</literal>, which provides a way to
+<literal><replaceable>package</replaceable>@&packages-host;</literal>, which provides a way to
email the maintainer, whatever their individual email address (or addresses)
-may be. Replace <literal><package></literal> with the name of a source
+may be. Replace <replaceable>package</replaceable> with the name of a source
or a binary package.
</para>
<para>
You may also be interested in contacting the persons who are subscribed to a
-given source package via <xref linkend="pkg-tracking-system"/> . You can do so
-by using the <literal><package>@packages.qa.debian.org</literal> email
+given source package via <xref linkend="pkg-tracking-system"/>. You can do so
+by using the <literal><replaceable>package</replaceable>@&pts-host;</literal> email
address.
</para>
<!-- FIXME: moo@packages.d.o is easily confused with moo@packages.qa.d.o -->
maintainers who are deemed Missing In Action is recorded. When a member of the
QA group contacts an inactive maintainer or finds more information about one,
this is recorded in the MIA database. This system is available in
-/org/qa.debian.org/mia on the host qa.debian.org, and can be queried with a
-tool known as <command>mia-query</command>. Use
-</para>
-<screen>
--query --help
-</screen>
-<para>
-to see how to query the database. If you find that no information has been
-recorded about an inactive maintainer yet, or that you can add more
-information, you should generally proceed as follows.
+<filename>/org/qa.debian.org/mia</filename> on the host <literal>qa.debian.org</literal>,
+and can be queried with the <command>mia-query</command> tool.
+Use <command>mia-query --help</command> to see how to query the database.
+If you find that no information has been recorded about an inactive maintainer yet,
+or that you can add more information, you should generally proceed as follows.
</para>
<para>
The first step is to politely contact the maintainer, and wait a reasonable
<itemizedlist>
<listitem>
<para>
-The
echelon information available through the <ulink
-url="https://db.debian.org/">developers' LDAP database</ulink>, which indicates
+The
<literal>echelon</literal> information available through the <ulink
+url="&url-debian-db;">developers' LDAP database</ulink>, which indicates
when the developer last posted to a Debian mailing list. (This includes
-uploads via debian-*-changes lists.) Also, remember to check whether the
-maintainer is marked as on vacation in the database.
+mails about uploads distributed via the &email-debian-devel-changes; list.)
+Also, remember to check whether the maintainer is marked as on vacation in
+the database.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
</itemizedlist>
<para>
A bit of a problem are packages which were sponsored — the maintainer is not
-an official Debian developer. The echelon information is not available for
-sponsored people, for example, so you need to find and contact the Debian
-developer who has actually uploaded the package. Given that they signed the
-package, they're responsible for the upload anyhow, and are likely to know what
-happened to the person they sponsored.
+an official Debian developer. The <literal>echelon</literal> information is not
+available for sponsored people, for example, so you need to find and contact the
+Debian developer who has actually uploaded the package. Given that they signed
+the package, they're responsible for the upload anyhow, and are likely to know
+what happened to the person they sponsored.
</para>
<para>
-It is also allowed to post a query to
-<email>debian-devel@lists.debian.org</email>, asking if anyone is aware of the
-whereabouts of the missing maintainer. Please Cc: the person in question.
+It is also allowed to post a query to &email-debian-devel;,
+asking if anyone is aware of the whereabouts of the missing maintainer. Please
+Cc: the person in question.
</para>
<para>
Once you have gathered all of this, you can contact
-<email>mia@qa.debian.org</email>. People on this alias will use the
+&email-mia;. People on this alias will use the
information you provide in order to decide how to proceed. For example, they
might orphan one or all of the packages of the maintainer. If a package has
been NMUed, they might prefer to contact the NMUer before orphaning the package
</para>
<para>
If you are interested in working in the MIA team, please have a look at the
-README file in /org/qa.debian.org/mia on qa.debian.org where the technical
-details and the MIA procedures are documented and contact
-<email>mia@qa.debian.org</email>.
+<filename>README</filename> file in <filename>/org/qa.debian.org/mia</filename> on
+<literal>qa.debian.org</literal> where the technical details and the MIA procedures are
+documented and contact &email-mia;.
</para>
</section>
<title>Sponsoring packages</title>
<para>
Sponsoring a package means uploading a package for a maintainer who is not able
-to do it on their own, a new maintainer applicant. Sponsoring a package also
-means accepting responsibility for it.
+to do it on their own. It's not a trivial matter, the sponsor must verify
+the packaging and ensure that it is of the high level of quality that
+Debian strives to have.
</para>
-<!-- FIXME: service down
<para>
-If you wish to volunteer as a sponsor, you can sign up at <ulink
-url="http://www.internatif.org/bortzmeyer/debian/sponsor/">http://www.internatif.org/bortzmeyer/debian/sponsor/</ulink>.
+Debian Developers can sponsor packages. Debian Maintainers can't.
</para>
--->
<para>
-New maintainers usually have certain difficulties creating Debian packages —
-this is quite understandable. That is why the sponsor is there, to check the
-package and verify that it is good enough for inclusion in Debian. (Note that
-if the sponsored package is new, the ftpmasters will also have to inspect it
-before letting it in.)
+The process of sponsoring a package is:
+<orderedlist numeration="arabic">
+<listitem>
+<para>The maintainer prepares a source package (<filename>.dsc</filename>) and puts it online
+somewhere (like on <ulink url="http://mentors.debian.net/cgi-bin/welcome">mentors.debian.net</ulink>) or even better, provides
+a link to a public VCS repository (see <xref linkend="servers-vcs"/>) where
+the package is maintained.</para>
+</listitem>
+<listitem>
+<para>The sponsor downloads (or checkouts) the source package.</para>
+</listitem>
+<listitem>
+<para>The sponsor reviews the source package. If she finds issues, she
+informs the maintainer and asks her to provide a fixed version (the
+process starts over at step 1).</para>
+</listitem>
+<listitem>
+<para>The sponsor could not find any remaining problem. She builds the
+package, signs it, and uploads it to Debian.</para>
+</listitem>
+</orderedlist>
</para>
<para>
-Sponsoring merely by signing the upload or just recompiling is <emphasis
-role="strong">definitely not recommended</emphasis>. You need to build the
-source package just like you would build a package of your own. Remember that
-it doesn't matter that you left the prospective developer's name both in the
-changelog and the control file, the upload can still be traced to you.
+Before delving in the details of how to sponsor a package, you should
+ask yourself whether adding the proposed package is beneficial to Debian.
</para>
<para>
-If you are an application manager for a prospective developer, you can also be
-their sponsor. That way you can also verify how the applicant is handling the
-'Tasks and Skills' part of their application.
+There's no simple rule to answer this question, it can depend on many
+factors: is the upstream codebase mature and not full of security holes?
+Are there pre-existing packages that can do the same task and how do they
+compare to this new package? Has the new package been requested by users
+and how large is the user base? How active are the upstream developers?
+</para>
+<para>
+You should also ensure that the prospective maintainer is going
+to be a good maintainer. Does she already have some experience with other
+packages? If yes, is she doing a good job with them (check out some bugs)?
+Is she familiar with the package and its programming language?
+Does she have the skills needed for this package? If not, is she able
+to learn them?
</para>
-</section>
-
-<section id="s7.5.2">
-<title>Managing sponsored packages</title>
<para>
-By uploading a sponsored package to Debian, you are certifying that the package
-meets minimum Debian standards. That implies that you must build and test the
-package on your own system before uploading.
+It's also a good idea to know where she stands towards Debian: does
+she agree with Debian's philosophy and does she intend to join Debian?
+Given how easy it is to become a Debian Maintainer, you might want
+to only sponsor people who plan to join. That way you know from the start
+that you won't have to act as a sponsor indefinitely.
</para>
+<section id="sponsoring-new-package">
+<title>Sponsoring a new package</title>
<para>
-You cannot simply upload a binary <filename>.deb</filename> from the sponsoree.
-In theory, you should only ask for the diff file and the location of the
-original source tarball, and then you should download the source and apply the
-diff yourself. In practice, you may want to use the source package built by
-your sponsoree. In that case, you have to check that they haven't altered the
-upstream files in the <filename>.orig.tar.gz</filename> file that they're
-providing.
+New maintainers usually have certain difficulties creating Debian packages —
+this is quite understandable. They will do mistakes. That's why sponsoring
+a brand new package into Debian requires a thorough review of the Debian
+packaging. Sometimes several iterations will be needed until the package
+is good enough to be uploaded to Debian. Thus being a sponsor implies being
+a mentor.
</para>
<para>
-Do not be afraid to write the sponsoree back and point out changes that need to
-be made. It often takes several rounds of back-and-forth email before the
-package is in acceptable shape. Being a sponsor means being a mentor.
+Don't ever sponsor a new package without reviewing it. The review
+of new packages done by ftpmasters mainly ensures that the software
+is really free. Of course, it happens that they stumble on packaging
+problems but they really should not. It's your task to ensure that
+the uploaded package complies with the Debian Free Software Guidelines and
+is of good quality.
</para>
<para>
-Once the package meets Debian standards, build and sign it with
+Building the package and testing the software is part of the review, but
+it's also not enough. The rest of this section contains a non-exhaustive
+list of points to check in your review.
+<footnote>
+<para>
+You can find more checks in the wiki where several developers share their own
+<ulink url="http://wiki.debian.org/SponsorChecklist">sponsorship checklists</ulink>.
+</para>
+</footnote>
</para>
+<itemizedlist>
+<listitem>
+<para>Verify that the upstream tarball provided is the same that has been
+distributed by the upstream author (when the sources are repackaged for
+Debian, generate the modified tarball yourself).</para>
+</listitem>
+<listitem>
+<para>Run <command>lintian</command> (see <xref linkend="lintian"/>). It will catch many common
+problems. Be sure to verify that any <command>lintian</command> overrides setup by the
+maintainer is fully justified.</para>
+</listitem>
+<listitem>
+<para>Run <command>licensecheck</command> (part of <xref linkend="devscripts"/>) and verify that
+<filename>debian/copyright</filename> seems correct and complete. Look for
+license problems (like files with “All rights reserved”
+headers, or with a non-DFSG compliant license). <command>grep -ri</command>
+is your friend for this task.</para>
+</listitem>
+<listitem>
+<para>Build the package with <command>pbuilder</command> (or any similar tool, see <xref
+linkend="pbuilder"/>) to ensure that the build-dependencies are
+complete.</para>
+</listitem>
+<listitem>
+<para>Proofread <filename>debian/control</filename>: does it follow the
+best practices (see <xref linkend="bpp-debian-control"/>)? Are the dependencies
+complete?</para>
+</listitem>
+<listitem>
+<para>Proofread <filename>debian/rules</filename>: does it follow the
+best practices (see <xref linkend="bpp-debian-rules"/>)? Do you see some
+possible improvements?</para>
+</listitem>
+<listitem>
+<para>Proofread the maintainer scripts (<filename>preinst</filename>,
+<filename>postinst</filename>, <filename>prerm</filename>,
+<filename>postrm</filename>, <filename>config</filename>): will the
+<filename>preinst</filename>/<filename>postrm</filename> work when the dependencies are not
+installed? Are all the scripts idempotent (i.e. can you run them multiple
+times without consequences)?</para>
+</listitem>
+<listitem>
+<para>Review any change to upstream files (either in <filename>.diff.gz</filename>, or in
+<filename>debian/patches/</filename> or directly embedded in the <filename>debian</filename>
+tarball for binary files). Are they justified? Are they properly
+documented (with <ulink url="&url-dep3;">DEP-3</ulink> for patches)?</para>
+</listitem>
+<listitem>
+<para>For every file, ask yourself why the file is there and whether it's
+the right way to achieve the desired result. Is the maintainer following
+the best packaging practices (see <xref
+linkend="best-pkging-practices"/>)?</para>
+</listitem>
+<listitem>
+<para>Build the packages, install them and try the software. Ensure you can
+remove and purge the packages. Maybe test them with <command>piuparts</command>.
+</para>
+</listitem>
+</itemizedlist>
+<para>
+If the audit did not reveal any problem, you can build the package and
+upload it to Debian. Remember that even if you're not the maintainer,
+the sponsor is still responsible of what he uploaded to Debian. That's
+why you're encouraged to keep up with the package through the
+<xref linkend="pkg-tracking-system"/>.
+</para>
+<para>
+Note that you should not need to modify the source package to put your name
+in the <filename>changelog</filename> or in the <filename>control</filename> file. The <literal>Maintainer</literal>
+field of the <filename>control</filename> file and the
+<filename>changelog</filename> should list the person who did the
+packaging, i.e. the sponsoree. That way she will get all the BTS mail.
+</para>
+<para>Instead you should instruct <command>dpkg-buildpackage</command> to use your key for
+the signature. You do that with the <literal>-k</literal> option:</para>
<screen>
--buildpackage -k<replaceable>KEY-ID</replaceable>
+dpkg-buildpackage -k<replaceable>KEY-ID</replaceable>
</screen>
+<para>If you use <command>debuild</command> and <command>debsign</command>, you can even configure it permanently
+in <filename>~/.devscripts</filename>:</para>
+<programlisting>
+DEBSIGN_KEYID=<replaceable>KEY-ID</replaceable>
+</programlisting>
+</section>
+
+<section id="sponsoring-update">
+<title>Sponsoring an update of an existing package</title>
+<para>
+You will usually assume that the package has already gone through a full
+review. So instead of doing it again, you will carefully analyze the
+difference between the current version and the new version prepared by the
+maintainer. If you have not done the initial review yourself, you might
+still want to have a more deeper look just in case the initial reviewer
+was sloppy.
+</para>
+<para>
+To be able to analyze the difference you need both versions. Download the
+current version of the source package (with <command>apt-get source</command>)
+and rebuild it (or download the current binary packages with
+<command>aptitude download</command>). Download the source package to sponsor
+(usually with <command>dget</command>).
+</para>
+<para>
+Read the new changelog entry, it should tell you what to expect during the
+review. The main tool you will use is <command>debdiff</command> (provide by
+the <systemitem role="package">devscripts</systemitem> package), you can run it with two source packages (<filename>.dsc</filename>
+files), or two binary packages, or two <filename>.changes</filename> files (it will then
+compare all the binary packages listed in the <filename>.changes</filename>).
+</para>
<para>
-before uploading it to the incoming directory. Of course, you can also use any
-part of your <replaceable>KEY-ID</replaceable>, as long as it's unique in your
-secret keyring.
+If you compare the source packages (excluding upstream files in the case
+of a new upstream version, for example by filtering the output of <command>debdiff</command>
+with <command>filterdiff -i '*/debian/*'</command>), you must understand all the
+changes you see and they should be properly documented in the Debian
+changelog.
</para>
<para>
-The Maintainer field of the <filename>control</filename> file and the
-<filename>changelog</filename> should list the person who did the packaging,
-i.e., the sponsoree. The sponsoree will therefore get all the BTS mail about
-the package.
+If everything is fine, build the package and compare the binary packages
+to verify that the changes on the source package have no unexpected
+consequences (like some files dropped by mistake, missing dependencies,
+etc.).
</para>
<para>
-If you prefer to leave a more evident trace of your sponsorship job, you can
-add a line stating it in the most recent changelog entry.
+You might want to check out the Package Tracking System (see <xref
+linkend="pkg-tracking-system"/>) to verify if the
+maintainer has not missed something important. Maybe there are translations
+updates sitting in the BTS that could have been integrated. Maybe the package
+has been NMUed and the maintainer forgot to integrate the changes from the
+NMU in his package. Maybe there's a release critical bug that he has left
+unhandled and that's blocking migration to <literal>testing</literal>. Whatever. If you find
+something that she could have done (better), it's time to tell her so that
+she can improve for next time, and so that she has a better understanding
+of her responsibilities.
</para>
<para>
-You are encouraged to keep tabs on the package you sponsor using <xref
-linkend="pkg-tracking-system"/> .
+If you have found no major problem, upload the new version. Otherwise
+ask the maintainer to provide you a fixed version.
</para>
</section>
+</section>
-<section id="s7.5.3">
+<section id="advocating-new-developers">
<title>Advocating new developers</title>
<para>
See the page about <ulink
-url="http://www.debian.org/devel/join/nm-advocate">advocating a prospective
+url="&url-newmaint-advocate;">advocating a prospective
developer</ulink> at the Debian web site.
</para>
</section>
-<section id="s7.5.4">
+<section id="become-application-manager">
<title>Handling new maintainer applications</title>
<para>
-Please see <ulink
-url="http://www.debian.org/devel/join/nm-amchecklist">Checklist for Application
-Managers</ulink> at the Debian web site.
+Please see <ulink url="&url-newmaint-amchecklist;">Checklist
+for Application Managers</ulink> at the Debian web site.
</para>
</section>
~ianmdlvl / developers-reference.git / blobdiff