+Now, the more complex part happens: Britney tries to update testing with
+the valid candidates; first, each package alone, and then larger and even
+larger sets of packages together. Each try is accepted if sarge is not
+more uninstallable after the update as before. (Before and after this part,
+some hints are processed; but as only release masters can hint, this is
+probably not so important for you.)
+ <p>
+If you want to see more details, you can look it up on
+merkel:/org/ftp.debian.org/testing/update_out/ (or there in
+~aba/testing/update_out to see a setup with a smaller packages file). Via
+web, it's at <url
+id="http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/update_out_code/">
+ <p>
+The hints are available via <url
+id="http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/hints/">.
+
+
+ <sect1 id="t-p-u">
+ <heading>Direct updates to testing</heading>
+ <p>
+The testing distribution is fed with packages from unstable according to the rules
+explained above. However, in some cases, it is necessary to upload
+packages built only for testing. For that, you may want to
+upload to <em>testing-proposed-updates</em>.
+ <p>
+Keep in mind that packages uploaded there are not automatically processed, they
+have to go through the hands of the release manager. So you'd better have a good
+reason to upload there. In order to know what a good reason is in the
+release manager's eyes, you should read the instructions that he regularly
+gives on &email-debian-devel-announce;.
+ <p>
+You should not upload to <em>testing-proposed-updates</em> when you can update your
+packages through <em>unstable</em>. If you can't (for example because you have a
+newer development version in unstable), you may use it but it is recommended to ask
+the authorization of the release manager before. Even if a package is
+frozen, updates through unstable are possible, if the upload via unstable
+does not pulls an new dependency in.
+ <p>
+Version numbers are usually selected by adding the codename of the testing
+distribution and a incrementing number, like 1.2sarge1 for the first upload
+through testing-proposed-updates of the package version 1.2.
+
+
+ <sect1 id="faq">
+ <heading>Frequently asked questions</heading>
+ <p>
+
+ <sect2 id="rc">
+ <heading>What are release-critical bugs, and how do they get counted?</heading>
+ <p>
+All bugs of some higher severities are by default considered release-critical; currently, these are critical, grave and serious bugs.
+ <p>
+Such bugs are presumed to have an impact on the chances that the package will be released with the stable release of Debian: in general, if a package has open release-critical bugs filed on it, it won't get into "testing", and consequently won't be released in "stable".
+ <p>
+The "testing" bug count for a package is considered to be roughly the bug count at the last point when the "testing" version equalled the "unstable" version. The bugs tagged woody or sarge will not be counted. Bugs with the sid tag will be counted, though.
+
+
+ <sect2>
+ <heading>How could installing a package into "testing" possibly break other packages?</heading>
+ <p>
+The structure of the distribution archives is such that they can only contain one version of a package; a package is defined by its name. So, when the source package acmefoo is installed into "testing", along with its binary packages acme-foo-bin, acme-bar-bin, libacme-foo1 and libacme-foo-dev, the old version is removed.
+ <p>
+However, the old version may have provided a binary package with an old soname of a library, such as libacme-foo0. Removing the old acmefoo will remove libacme-foo0, which will break any packages which depend on it.
+ <p>
+Evidently, this mainly affects packages which provide changing sets of binary packages in different versions (in turn, mainly libraries). However, it will also affect packages upon which versioned dependencies have been declared of the ==, <= or << varieties.
+ <p>
+When the set of binary packages provided by a source package change in this way, all the packages that depended on the old binaries will have to be updated to depend on the new binaries instead. Because installing such a source package into "testing" breaks all the packages that depended on it in "testing", some care now has to be taken: all the depending packages must be updated and ready to be installed themselves so that they won't be broken, and, once everything is ready, manual intervention by the release manager or an assistant is normally required.
+ <p>
+If you are having problems with complicated groups of packages like this, contact debian-devel or debian-release for help.
+ </sect>
+
+ <chapt id="best-pkging-practices">
+ <heading>Best Packaging Practices</heading>
+ <p>
+Debian's quality is largely due to the <url id="&url-debian-policy;"
+name="Debian Policy">, which defines explicit baseline requirements
+which all Debian packages must fulfill. Yet there is also a shared
+history of experience which goes beyond the Debian Policy, an
+accumulation of years of experience in packaging. Many very
+talented people have created great tools, tools which help you, the
+Debian maintainer, create and maintain excellent packages.
+ <p>
+This chapter provides some best practices for Debian developers. All
+recommendations are merely that, and are not requirements or policy.
+These are just some subjective hints, advice and pointers collected
+from Debian developers. Feel free to pick and choose whatever works
+best for you.
+
+ <sect id="bpp-debian-rules">
+ <heading>Best practices for <file>debian/rules</file></heading>
+ <p>
+The following recommendations apply to the <file>debian/rules</file>
+file. Since <file>debian/rules</file> controls the build process and
+selects the files which go into the package (directly or indirectly),
+it's usually the file maintainers spend the most time on.
+
+ <sect1 id="helper-scripts">Helper scripts
+ <p>
+The rationale for using helper scripts in <file>debian/rules</file> is
+that lets maintainers use and share common logic among many packages.
+Take for instance the question of installing menu entries: you need to
+put the file into <file>/usr/lib/menu</file>, and add commands to the
+maintainer scripts to register and unregister the menu entries. Since
+this is a very common thing for packages to do, why should each
+maintainer rewrite all this on their own, sometimes with bugs? Also,
+supposing the menu directory changed, every package would have to be
+changed.
+ <p>
+Helper scripts take care of these issues. Assuming you comply with
+the conventions expected by the helper script, the helper takes care
+of all the details. Changes in policy can be made in the helper
+script, then packages just need to be rebuilt with the new version of
+the helper and no other changes.
+ <p>
+<ref id="tools"> contains a couple of different helpers. The most
+common and best (in our opinion) helper system is
+<package>debhelper</package>. Previous helper systems, such as
+<package>debmake</package>, were "monolithic": you couldn't pick and
+choose which part of the helper you found useful, but had to use the
+helper to do everything. <package>debhelper</package>, however, is a
+number of separate little <prgn>dh_*</prgn> programs. For instance,
+<prgn>dh_installman</prgn> installs and compresses man pages,
+<prgn>dh_installmenu</prgn> installs menu files, and so on. Thus, it
+offers enough flexibility to be able to use the little helper scripts,
+where useful, in conjunction with hand-crafted commands in
+<file>debian/rules</file>.
+ <p>
+You can get started with <package>debhelper</package> by reading
+<manref name="debhelper" section="1">, and looking at the examples
+that come with the package. <prgn>dh_make</prgn>, from the
+<package>dh-make</package> package (see <ref id="dh-make">), can be
+used to convert a "vanilla" source package to a
+<package>debhelper</package>ized package. This shortcut, though,
+should not convince you that you do not need to bother understanding
+the individual <prgn>dh_*</prgn> helpers. If you are going to use a
+helper, you do need to take the time to learn to use that helper, to
+learn its expectations and behavior.
+ <p>
+Some people feel that vanilla <file>debian/rules</file> files are
+better, since you don't have to learn the intricacies of any helper
+system. This decision is completely up to you. Use what works for
+you. Many examples of vanilla <file>debian/rules</file> files are
+available at <url id="&url-rules-files;">.
+
+
+ <sect1 id="multiple-patches">
+ <heading>Separating your patches into multiple files</heading>
+ <p>
+Big, complex packages may have many bugs that you need to deal with.
+If you correct a number of bugs directly in the source, and you're not
+careful, it can get hard to differentiate the various patches that you
+applied. It can get quite messy when you have to update the package
+to a new upstream version which integrates some of the fixes (but not
+all). You can't take the total set of diffs (e.g., from
+<file>.diff.gz</file>) and work out which patch sets to back out as a
+unit as bugs are fixed upstream.
+ <p>
+Unfortunately, the packaging system as such currently doesn't provide for
+separating the patches into several files. Nevertheless, there are ways to
+separate patches: the patch files are shipped within the Debian patch file
+(<file>.diff.gz</file>), usually within the <file>debian/</file> directory.
+The only difference is that they aren't applied immediately by dpkg-source,
+but by the <tt>build</tt> rule of <file>debian/rules</file>. Conversely,
+they are reverted in the <tt>clean</tt> rule.
+ <p>
+<prgn>dbs</prgn> is one of the more popular approaches to this. It does all
+of the above, and provides a facility for creating new and updating old
+patches. See the package <package>dbs</package> for more information and
+<package>hello-dbs</package> for an example.
+ <p>
+<prgn>dpatch</prgn> also provides these facilities, but it's intented to be
+even easier to use. See the package <package>dpatch</package> for
+documentation and examples (in <file>/usr/share/doc/dpatch</file>).
+
+
+ <sect1 id="multiple-binary">Multiple binary packages
+ <p>
+A single source package will often build several binary packages,
+either to provide several flavors of the same software (e.g.,
+the <package>vim</package> source package) or to make several small
+packages instead of a big one (e.g., if the user can install only the
+subset she needs, and thus save some disk space).
+ <p>
+The second case can be easily managed in <file>debian/rules</file>.
+You just need to move the appropriate files from the build directory
+into the package's temporary trees. You can do this using
+<prgn>install</prgn> or <prgn>dh_install</prgn>
+from <package>debhelper</package>. Be sure to check the different
+permutations of the various packages, ensuring that you have the
+inter-package dependencies set right in <file>debian/control</file>.
+ <p>
+The first case is a bit more difficult since it involves multiple
+recompiles of the same software but with different configuration
+options. The <package>vim</package> source package is an example of how to manage
+this using an hand-crafted <file>debian/rules</file> file.
+
+<!-- &FIXME; Find a good debhelper example with multiple configure/make
+ cycles -->
+ </sect1>
+ </sect>
+
+
+ <sect id="bpp-debian-control">
+ <heading>Best practices for <file>debian/control</file></heading>
+ <p>
+The following practices are relevant to the
+<file>debian/control</file> file. They supplement the <url
+id="&url-debian-policy;ch-binary.html#s-descriptions"
+name="Policy on package descriptions">.
+ <p>
+The description of the package, as defined by the corresponding field
+in the <file>control</file> file, contains both the package synopsis
+and the long description for the package. <ref id="bpp-desc-basics">
+describes common guidelines for both parts of the package description.
+Following that, <ref id="bpp-pkg-synopsis"> provides guidelines
+specific to the synopsis, and <ref id="bpp-pkg-desc"> contains
+guidelines specific to the description.
+
+ <sect1 id="bpp-desc-basics">
+ <heading>General guidelines for package descriptions</heading>
+ <p>
+The package description should be written for the average likely user,
+the average person who will use and benefit from the package. For
+instance, development packages are for developers, and can be
+technical in their language. More general-purpose applications, such
+as editors, should be written for a less technical user.
+ <p>
+Our review of package descriptions lead us to conclude that most
+package descriptions are technical, that is, are not written to make
+sense for non-technical users. Unless your package really is only for
+technical users, this is a problem.
+ <p>
+How do you write for non-technical users? Avoid jargon. Avoid
+referring to other applications or frameworks that the user might not
+be familiar with — "GNOME" or "KDE" is fine, since users are
+probably familiar with these terms, but "GTK+" is
+probably not. Try not to assume any knowledge at all. If you must
+use technical terms, introduce them.
+ <p>
+Be objective. Package descriptions are not the place for advocating
+your package, no matter how much you love it. Remember that the
+reader may not care about the same things you care about.
+ <p>
+References to the names of any other software packages, protocol names,
+standards, or specifications should use their canonical forms, if one
+exists. For example, use "X Window System", "X11", or "X"; not "X
+Windows", "X-Windows", or "X Window". Use "GTK+", not "GTK" or "gtk".
+Use "GNOME", not "Gnome". Use "PostScript", not "Postscript" or
+"postscript".
+ <p>
+If you are having problems writing your description, you may wish to
+send it along to &email-debian-l10n-english; and request feedback.
+ </sect1>
+
+
+ <sect1 id="bpp-pkg-synopsis">
+ <heading>The package synopsis, or short description</heading>
+ <p>
+The synopsis line (the short description) should be concise. It
+must not repeat the package's name (this is policy).
+ <p>
+It's a good idea to think of the synopsis as an appositive clause, not
+a full sentence. An appositive clause is defined in WordNet as a
+grammatical relation between a word and a noun phrase that follows,
+e.g., "Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer". The appositive clause here is
+"red-nosed reindeer". Since the synopsis is a clause, rather than a
+full sentence, we recommend that it neither start with a capital nor
+end with a full stop (period). It should also not begin with an
+article, either definite ("the") or indefinite ("a" or "an").
+ <p>
+It might help to imagine that the synopsis is combined with the
+package name in the following way:
+
+<example><var>package-name</var> is a <var>synopsis</var>.</example>
+
+Alternatively, it might make sense to think of it as
+
+<example><var>package-name</var> is <var>synopsis</var>.</example>
+
+or, if the package name itself is a plural (such as
+"developers-tools")
+
+<example><var>package-name</var> are <var>synopsis</var>.</example>
+
+This way of forming a sentence from the package name and synopsis
+should be considered as a heuristic and not a strict rule. There are
+some cases where it doesn't make sense to try to form a sentence.
+ </sect1>
+
+ <sect1 id="bpp-pkg-desc">
+ <heading>The long description</heading>
+ <p>
+The long description is the primary information available to the user
+about a package before they install it. It should provide all the
+information needed to let the user decide whether to install the
+package. Assume that the user has already read the package synopsis.
+ <p>
+The long description should consist of full and complete sentences.
+ <p>
+The first paragraph of the long description should answer the
+following questions: what does the package do? what task does it help
+the user accomplish? It is important to describe this in a
+non-technical way, unless of course the audience for the package is
+necessarily technical.
+ <p>
+The following paragraphs should answer the following questions: Why do
+I as a user need this package? What other features does the package
+have? What outstanding features and deficiencies are there compared
+to other packages (e.g., "if you need X, use Y instead")? Is this
+package related to other packages in some way that is not handled by
+the package manager (e.g., "this is the client to the foo server")?
+ <p>
+Be careful to avoid spelling and grammar mistakes. Ensure that you
+spell-check it. <prgn>ispell</prgn> has a special <tt>-g</tt> option
+for <file>debian/control</file> files:
+
+<example>ispell -d american -g debian/control</example>
+ <p>
+User usually expect these questions to be answered in the package
+description.
+ <list>
+ <item>
+What does the package do? If it is an add-on to another package,
+then the short description of the package we are an add on to
+should be put in here.
+ <item>
+Why should I want this package? This is related to the above,
+but not the same (this is a mail user agent; this is cool, fast,
+interfaces with pgp and ldap and imap, has features X, Y, and Z).
+ <item>
+If this package should not be installed directly, but is pulled in
+by another package, this should be mentioned.
+ <item>
+If the package is experimental, or there are other reasons it
+should not be used, if there are other packages that should be
+used instead, it should be here as well.
+ <item>
+How is this package different from the competition? Is it a better
+implementation? more features? different features? Why should I
+choose this package (2. should talk about the class of packages, and
+this about this particular package, if you have information related to both).
+ </list>
+
+ </sect1>
+
+
+ <sect1 id="bpp-upstream-info">
+ <heading>Upstream home page</heading>
+ <p>
+We recommend that you add the URL for the package's home page to the
+package description in <file>debian/control</file>. This information
+should be added at the
+end of description, using the following format:
+
+<example> .
+ Homepage: http://some-project.some-place.org/</example>
+
+Note the spaces prepending the line, which serves to break the lines
+correctly. To see an example of how this displays, see <url
+id="&url-eg-desc-upstream-info;">.
+ <p>
+If there is no home page for the software, this should naturally be
+left out.
+ <p>
+Note that we expect this field will eventually be replaced by a proper
+<file>debian/control</file> field understood by <prgn>dpkg</prgn> and
+<tt>&packages-host;</tt>. If you don't want to bother migrating the
+home page from the description to this field, you should probably wait
+until that is available.</p>
+ </sect1>
+ </sect>
+
+
+ <sect id="bpp-debian-changelog">
+ <heading>Best practices for <file>debian/changelog</file></heading>
+ <p>
+The following practices supplement the <url name="Policy on changelog
+files" id="&url-debian-policy;ch-docs.html#s-changelogs">.</p>
+
+ <sect1 id="bpp-changelog-do">
+ <heading>Writing useful changelog entries</heading>
+ <p>
+The changelog entry for a package revision documents changes in that
+revision, and only them. Concentrate on describing significant and
+user-visible changes that were made since the last version.
+ <p>
+Focus on <em>what</em> was changed — who, how and when are
+usually less important. Having said that, remember to politely
+attribute people who have provided notable help in making the package
+(e.g., those who have sent in patches).
+ <p>
+There's no need to elaborate the trivial and obvious changes. You can
+also aggregate several changes in one entry. On the other hand, don't
+be overly terse if you have undertaken a major change. Be especially
+clear if there are changes that affect the behaviour of the program.
+For further explanations, use the <file>README.Debian</file> file.
+ <p>
+Use common English so that the majority of readers can comprehend it.
+Avoid abbreviations, "tech-speak" and jargon when explaining changes
+that close bugs, especially for bugs filed by users that did not
+strike you as particularly technically savvy. Be polite, don't swear.
+ <p>
+It is sometimes desirable to prefix changelog entries with the names
+of the files that were changed. However, there's no need to
+explicitly list each and every last one of the changed files,
+especially if the change was small or repetitive. You may use
+wildcards.
+ <p>
+When referring to bugs, don't assume anything. Say what the problem
+was, how it was fixed, and append the "closes: #nnnnn" string. See
+<ref id="upload-bugfix"> for more information.
+
+
+ <sect1 id="bpp-changelog-misconceptions">
+ <heading>Common misconceptions about changelog entries</heading>
+ <p>
+The changelog entries should <strong>not</strong> document generic
+packaging issues ("Hey, if you're looking for foo.conf, it's in
+/etc/blah/."), since administrators and users are supposed to be at
+least remotely acquainted with how such things are generally arranged
+on Debian systems. Do, however, mention if you change the location of
+a configuration file.
+ <p>
+The only bugs closed with a changelog entry should be those that are
+actually fixed in the same package revision. Closing unrelated bugs
+in the changelog is bad practice. See <ref id="upload-bugfix">.
+ <p>
+The changelog entries should <strong>not</strong> be used for random
+discussion with bug reporters ("I don't see segfaults when starting
+foo with option bar; send in more info"), general statements on life,
+the universe and everything ("sorry this upload took me so long, but I
+caught the flu"), or pleas for help ("the bug list on this package is
+huge, please lend me a hand"). Such things usually won't be noticed
+by their target audience, but may annoy people who wish to read
+information about actual changes in the package. See <ref
+id="bug-answering"> for more information on how to use the bug
+tracking system.
+ <p>
+It is an old tradition to acknowledge bugs fixed in non-maintainer
+uploads in the first changelog entry of the proper maintainer upload,
+for instance, in a changelog entry like this:
+<example>
+ * Maintainer upload, closes: #42345, #44484, #42444.
+</example>
+This will close the NMU bugs tagged "fixed" when the package makes
+it into the archive. The bug for the fact that an NMU was done can be
+closed the same way. Of course, it's also perfectly acceptable to
+close NMU-fixed bugs by other means; see <ref id="bug-answering">.
+ </sect1>
+
+ <sect1 id="bpp-changelog-errors">
+ <heading>Common errors in changelog entries</heading>
+ <p>
+The following examples demonstrate some common errors or example of
+bad style in changelog entries.
+
+ <p>
+<example>
+ * Fixed all outstanding bugs.
+</example>
+This doesn't tell readers anything too useful, obviously.
+
+ <p>
+<example>
+ * Applied patch from Jane Random.
+</example>
+What was the patch about?
+
+ <p>
+<example>
+ * Late night install target overhaul.
+</example>
+Overhaul which accomplished what? Is the mention of late night
+supposed to remind us that we shouldn't trust that code?
+
+ <p>
+<example>
+ * Fix vsync FU w/ ancient CRTs.
+</example>
+Too many acronyms, and it's not overly clear what the, uh, fsckup (oops,
+a curse word!) was actually about, or how it was fixed.
+
+ <p>
+<example>
+ * This is not a bug, closes: #nnnnnn.
+</example>
+First of all, there's absolutely no need to upload the package to
+convey this information; instead, use the bug tracking system.
+Secondly, there's no explanation as to why the report is not a bug.
+
+ <p>
+<example>
+ * Has been fixed for ages, but I forgot to close; closes: #54321.
+</example>
+If for some reason you didn't mention the bug number in a previous changelog
+entry, there's no problem, just close the bug normally in the BTS. There's
+no need to touch the changelog file, presuming the description of the fix is
+already in (this applies to the fixes by the upstream authors/maintainers as
+well, you don't have to track bugs that they fixed ages ago in your
+changelog).
+
+ <p>
+<example>
+ * Closes: #12345, #12346, #15432
+</example>
+Where's the description? If you can't think of a descriptive message,
+start by inserting the title of each different bug.
+ </sect1>
+
+ <sect1 id="bpp-news-debian">
+ <heading>Suplimenting changelogs with NEWS.Debian files</heading>
+ <p>
+Important news about changes in a package can also be put in NEWS.Debian
+files. The news will be displayed by tools like apt-listchanges, before
+all the rest of the changelogs. This is the preferred means to let the user
+know about significant changes in a package. It is better than using
+debconf notes since it is less annoying and the user can go back and refer
+to the NEWS.Debian file after the install. And it's better than listing
+major changes in README.Debian, since the user can easily miss such notes.
+ <p>
+The file format is the same as a debian changelog file, but leave off
+the asterisks and describe each news item with a full paragraph when
+necessary rather than the more concise summaries that would go in a
+changelog. It's a good idea to run your file through dpkg-parsechangelog to
+check its formatting as it will not be automatically checked during build
+as the changelog is. Here is an example of a real NEWS.Debian file:
+<example>
+cron (3.0pl1-74) unstable; urgency=low
+
+ The checksecurity script is no longer included with the cron package:
+ it now has its own package, "checksecurity". If you liked the
+ functionality provided with that script, please install the new
+ package.
+
+ -- Steve Greenland <stevegr&debian.org> Sat, 6 Sep 2003 17:15:03 -0500
+</example>
+ <p>
+The NEWS.Debian file is installed as
+/usr/share/doc/<package>/NEWS.Debian.gz. It is compressed, and
+always has that name even in Debian native packages. If you use debhelper,
+dh_installchangelogs will install debian/NEWS files for you.
+ <p>
+Unlike changelog files, you need not update NEWS.Debian files with every
+release. Only update them if you have something particularly newsworthy
+that user should know about. If you have no news at all, there's no need
+to ship a NEWS.Debian file in your package. No news is good news!
+ </sect>
+
+<!--
+ <sect1 id="pkg-mgmt-cvs">Managing a package with CVS
+ <p>
+ &FIXME; presentation of cvs-buildpackage, updating sources
+ via CVS (debian/rules refresh).
+ <url id="http://www.debian.org/devel/cvs_packages">
+-->