<!-- common, language independant entities -->
<!entity % commondata SYSTEM "common.ent" > %commondata;
<!-- CVS revision of this document -->
- <!entity cvs-rev "$Revision: 1.47 $">
+ <!entity cvs-rev "$Revision: 1.71 $">
<!-- if you are translating this document, please notate the RCS
revision of the developers reference here -->
<author>Adam Di Carlo, current maintainer <email>aph@debian.org</email>
<author>Christian Schwarz <email>schwarz@debian.org</email>
<author>Ian Jackson <email>ijackson@gnu.ai.mit.edu</email>
- <version>ver. &version;, &date;
+ <version>ver. &version;, &date-en;
<copyright>
<copyrightsummary>
-copyright ©1998, 1999 Adam Di Carlo</copyrightsummary>
+copyright ©1998 &ndash 2001 Adam Di Carlo</copyrightsummary>
<copyrightsummary>
copyright ©1997, 1998 Christian Schwarz</copyrightsummary>
<p>
their packages (<ref id="tools">).
<p>
It should be clear that this reference does not discuss the technical
-details of the Debian package nor how to generate Debian packages;
-that information is discussed in the <url id="&url-pkg-manual;"
-name="Debian Packaging Manual">. Nor does this reference detail the
-standards to which Debian software must comply; that information can
-be found in the <url id="&url-debian-policy;" name="Debian Policy
-Manual">.
+details of the Debian package nor how to generate Debian packages.
+Nor does this reference detail the standards to which Debian software
+must comply. All of such information can be found in the <url
+id="&url-debian-policy;" name="Debian Policy Manual">.
<p>
Furthermore, this document is <em>not an expression of formal
-policy</em>. It contains documentation for the Debian system, and
-generally agreed-upon best practices.
+policy</em>. It contains documentation for the Debian system and
+generally agreed-upon best practices. Thus, it is what is called a
+``normative'' document.
<chapt id="new-maintainer">Applying to Become a Maintainer
<item>
Any formal certification service (such as Verisign, etc.) that
verifies your identity. A certification that verifies your email
-address, and not you identity, is not sufficient.
+address, and not your identity, is not sufficient.
</list>
<item>
Alternatively, you may identify yourself with a scanned (or physically
In order to inform the other developers, there's two things that you should do.
First send a mail to &email-debian-private; giving the period of time when
you will be on vacation. You can also give some special instructions on what to
-do if any problem occurs. Next you should update your information
+do if any problem occurs. Be aware that some people don't care for vacation
+notices and don't want to read them; you should prepend "[VAC] " to the
+subject of your message so that it can be easily filtered.
+ <p>
+Next you should update your information
available in the Debian LDAP database and mark yourself as ``on vacation''
(this information is only accessible to debian developers). Don't forget
-to remove the ``on vacation'' flag when you come back.
+to remove the ``on vacation'' flag when you come back!
<sect id="upstream-coordination">Coordination With Upstream Developers
<p>
A big part of your job as Debian maintainer will be to stay in contact
-with the upstream developers since you'll have to share information that
-you get from the Bug Tracking System. It's not your job to fix non-Debian
-specific bugs.
-Rather, you have to forward these bugs to the upstream developers.
-(Of course, if you are able to do so, you may certainly fix them...)
-This way, the bug will hopefully
-be corrected when the next upstream version comes out.
+with the upstream developers. Debian users will sometimes report bugs
+to the Bug Tracking System that are not specific to Debian. You
+must forward these bug reports to the upstream developers so that
+they can be fixed in a future release. It's not your job to fix
+non-Debian specific bugs. However, if you are able to do so, you are
+encouraged to contribute to upstream development of the package by
+providing a fix for the bug. Debian users and developers will often
+submit patches to fix upstream bugs, and you should evaluate and
+forward these patches upstream.
<p>
-From time to
-time, you may get a patch attached to a bug report. You have to send the
-patch upstream and make sure that it gets included (if the authors accept
-the proposed fix). If you need to modify the upstream sources in order to
-build a policy conformant package, then you should propose a nice fix
-to the upstream developers which can be included there, so that you won't have to
+If you need to modify the upstream sources in order to build a policy
+conformant package, then you should propose a nice fix to the upstream
+developers which can be included there, so that you won't have to
modify the sources of the next upstream version. Whatever changes you
need, always try not to fork from the upstream sources.
<em>critical</em>, <em>grave</em> or <em>serious</em>.
Those bugs can delay the Debian release
and/or can justify the removal of a package at freeze time. That's why
-those bugs needs to be corrected as fast as possible. You must be
+these bugs need to be corrected as quickly as possible. You must be
aware that some developers who are part of the <url
id="&url-debian-qa;" name="Debian Quality Assurance"> effort are
-following those bugs and try to help you each time they can. But if
+following those bugs and try to help you whenever they are able. But if
you can't fix such bugs within 2 weeks, you should either ask for help
by sending a mail to the Quality Assurance (QA) group
-(&email-debian-qa;) or justify yourself and present your plan to fix
-it by sending a mail to the bug concerned report. Otherwise people
+&email-debian-qa;, or explain your difficulties and present a plan to fix
+them by sending a mail to the proper bug report. Otherwise, people
from the QA group may want to do a Non-Maintainer Upload (see
<ref id="nmu">) after trying to contact you (they might not wait as long as
usual before they do their NMU if they have seen no recent activity from you
-on the BTS).
+in the BTS).
<sect id="qa-effort">Quality Assurance Effort
<p>
Even though there is a dedicated group of people for Quality
-Assurance, QA duties are not reserved solely to them. You can
-participate in this effort by keeping your packages as bug free as
+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 <ref id="lintian-reports">) as
-possible. If you think that it's quite impossible, then you should
-consider orphaning (see <ref id="orphaning">) some of your packages so
-that you can do a good job with the other packages that you
-maintain. Alternatively you may ask the help of other people in order
-to catch up the backlog of bugs that you have (you can ask for help on
-&email-debian-qa; or &email-debian-devel;).
+possible. If you do not find that possible, then you should consider
+orphaning some of your packages (see <ref
+id="orphaning">). Alternatively, you may ask the help of other people
+in order to catch up the backlog of bugs that you have (you can ask
+for help on &email-debian-qa; or &email-debian-devel;).
<sect>Retiring Gracefully
<p>
server. For instance, at the mirror site,
<ftpsite>ftp.us.debian.org</ftpsite>, the Debian archive itself is
contained in <ftppath>/debian</ftppath>, which is a common location
-(another is <ftppath>/pub/debian</ftppath>).
+(another is <tt>/pub/debian</tt>).
<p>
A distribution is comprised of Debian source and binary packages, and the
respective <tt>Sources</tt> and <tt>Packages</tt> index files, containing
This development cycle is based on the assumption that the
<em>unstable</em> distribution becomes <em>stable</em> after passing a
period of testing as <em>frozen</em>. Even once a distribution is
-considered stable, a few bugs inevitably remain--that's why the stable
+considered stable, a few bugs inevitably remain &mdash that's why the stable
distribution is updated every now and then. However, these updates are
tested very carefully and have to be introduced into the archive
individually to reduce the risk of introducing new bugs. You can find
<sect1>Experimental
-<!-- Note: experimental is currently dead because of the package pools.
- Once that changes, the description below will most probably need
- adjustments. -->
<p>
The <em>experimental</em> distribution is a specialty distribution.
It is not a full distribution in the same sense as `stable' and
`unstable' are. Instead, it is meant to be a temporary staging area
for highly experimental software where there's a good chance that the
-software could break your system. Users who download and install
+software could break your system, or software that's just too unstable
+even for the <em>unstable</em> distribution (but there is a reason to
+package it nevertheless). Users who download and install
packages from <em>experimental</em> are expected to have been duly
warned. In short, all bets are off for the <em>experimental</em>
distribution.
<p>
-Developers should be very selective in the use of the
-<em>experimental</em> distribution. Even if a package is highly
-unstable, it could still go into <em>unstable</em>; just state a
-few warnings in the description. However, if there is a chance that
-the software could do grave damage to a system, it might be better to
-put it into <em>experimental</em>.
- <p>
-For instance, an experimental encrypted file system should probably go
-into <em>experimental</em>. A new, beta, version of some software
-which uses completely different configuration might go into
-<em>experimental</em> at the maintainer's discretion. New software
-which isn't likely to damage your system can go into
-<em>unstable</em>. If you are working on an incompatible or complex
-upgrade situation, you can also use <em>experimental</em> as a staging
-area, so that testers can get early access.
- <p>
-However, using <em>experimental</em> as a personal staging area is not
-always the best idea. You can't replace or upgrade the files in there
-on your own (it is done with Debian archive maintenance software).
-Additionally, you'll have to remember to ask the archive
-maintainers to delete the package once you have uploaded it to
-<em>unstable</em>. Using your personal web space on
-<tt>klecker.debian.org</tt> is generally a better idea, so that you put
-less strain on the Debian archive maintainers.
+If there is a chance that the software could do grave damage to a system,
+it is likely to be better to put it into <em>experimental</em>.
+For instance, an experimental compressed file system should probably go
+into <em>experimental</em>.
+ <p>
+Whenever there is a new upstream version of a package that introduces new
+features but breaks a lot of old ones, it should either not be uploaded, or
+be uploaded to <em>experimental</em>. A new, beta, version of some software
+which uses completely different configuration can go into
+<em>experimental</em>, at the maintainer's discretion. If you are working
+on an incompatible or complex upgrade situation, you can also use
+<em>experimental</em> as a staging area, so that testers can get early
+access.
+ <p>
+Some experimental software can still go into <em>unstable</em>, with a few
+warnings in the description, but that isn't recommended because packages
+from <em>unstable</em> are expected to propagate to <em>testing</em> and
+thus to <em>stable</em>.
+ <p>
+New software which isn't likely to damage your system can go directly into
+<em>unstable</em>.
+ <p>
+An alternative to <em>experimental</em> is to use your personal web space
+on <tt>people.debian.org</tt> (<tt>klecker.debian.org</tt>).
<sect id="codenames">Release code names
<p>
Every released Debian distribution has a <em>code name</em>: Debian
1.1 is called `buzz'; Debian 1.2, `rex'; Debian 1.3, `bo'; Debian 2.0,
-`hamm'; Debian 2.1, `slink'; and Debian 2.2, `potato'. There is also
-a ``pseudo-distribution'', called `sid', which is contains packages for
-architectures which are not yet officially supported or released by
-Debian. These architectures are planned to be integrated into the
-mainstream distribution at some future date.
+`hamm'; Debian 2.1, `slink'; Debian 2.2, `potato'; and Debian 3.0, `woody'. There is also
+a ``pseudo-distribution'', called `sid', which is the current
+`unstable' distribution; since packages are moved from `unstable' to
+`testing' as they approach stability, `sid' itself is never released.
+As well as the usual contents of a Debian distribution, `sid' contains
+packages for architectures which are not yet officially supported or
+released by Debian. These architectures are planned to be integrated
+into the mainstream distribution at some future date.
<p>
Since Debian has an open development model (i.e., everyone can
-participate and follow the development) even the unstable distribution
-is distributed to the Internet through the Debian FTP and HTTP server
-network. Thus, if we had called the directory which contains the
-development version `unstable', then we would have to rename it to
-`stable' when the version is released, which would cause all FTP
-mirrors to re-retrieve the whole distribution (which is quite
-large).
+participate and follow the development) even the `unstable' and `testing'
+distributions are distributed to the Internet through the Debian FTP and
+HTTP server network. Thus, if we had called the directory which contains
+the release candidate version `testing', then we would have to rename it
+to `stable' when the version is released, which would cause all FTP
+mirrors to re-retrieve the whole distribution (which is quite large).
<p>
On the other hand, if we called the distribution directories
<em>Debian-x.y</em> from the beginning, people would think that Debian
more information.
<p>
Assuming no one else is already working on your prospective package,
-you must then submit a short bug (<ref id="submit-bug">) against the
-pseudo package <tt>wnpp</tt> and send a copy to &email-debian-devel;
+you must then submit a bug report (<ref id="submit-bug">) against the
+pseudo package <tt>wnpp</tt>
describing your plan to create a new package, including, but not
limiting yourself to, a description of the package, the license of the
prospective package and the current URL where it can be downloaded
-from. You should set the subject of the bug to ``ITP: <var>foo</var>
+from.
+ <p>
+You should set the subject of the bug to ``ITP: <var>foo</var>
-- <var>short description</var>'', substituting the name of the new
-package for <var>foo</var>. The severity of the bug report must be
-set to <em>wishlist</em>. Please include a <tt>Closes:
-bug#<var>nnnnn</var></tt> entry on the changelog of the new package in
-order for the bug report to be automatically closed once the new
-package is installed on the archive (<ref id="upload-bugfix">).
+package for <var>foo</var>. The severity of the bug report must be set
+to <em>wishlist</em>. If you feel it's necessary, send a copy to
+&email-debian-devel; by putting the address in the X-Debbugs-CC: header
+of the message (no, don't use CC:, because that way the message's subject
+won't indicate the bug number).
+ <p>
+Please include a <tt>Closes: bug#<var>nnnnn</var></tt> entry on the
+changelog of the new package in order for the bug report to be
+automatically closed once the new package is installed on the archive
+(<ref id="upload-bugfix">).
<p>
There are a number of reasons why we ask maintainers to announce their
intentions:
</list>
+ <sect id="upload-checking">Checking the package prior to upload
+ <p>
+Before you upload your package, you should do basic testing on it. At
+a minimum, you should try the following activities (you'll need to
+have an older version of the same Debian package around):
+<list>
+ <item>
+Install the package and make sure the software works, or upgrade the
+package from an older version to your new version if a Debian package
+for it already exists.
+ <item>
+Run <prgn>lintian</prgn> over the package. You can run
+<prgn>lintian</prgn> as follows: <tt>lintian -v
+<var>package-version</var>.changes</tt>. This will check the source
+package as well as the binary package. If you don't understand the
+output that <prgn>lintian</prgn> generates, try adding the <tt>-i</tt>
+switch, which will cause <prgn>lintian</prgn> to output a very verbose
+description of the problem.
+ <p>
+Normally, a package should <em>not</em> be uploaded if it causes lintian
+to emit errors (they will start with <tt>E</tt>).
+ <p>
+For more information on <prgn>lintian</prgn>, see <ref id="lintian">.
+ <item>
+Downgrade the package to the previous version (if one exists) — this
+tests the <tt>postrm</tt> and <tt>prerm</tt> scripts.
+ <item>
+Remove the package, then reinstall it.
+ </list>
- <sect id="uploading">Uploading a package
-
- <sect1>Generating the changes file
+ <sect>Generating the changes file
<p>
When a package is uploaded to the Debian FTP archive, it must be
accompanied by a <tt>.changes</tt> file, which gives directions to the
&control-file-fields;
<p>
All of these fields are mandatory for a Debian upload. See the list
-of control fields in the <url id="&url-pkg-manual;" name="Debian
-Packaging Manual"> for the contents of these fields. You can close
-bugs automatically using the <tt>Description</tt> field, see <ref
-id="upload-bugfix">. Only the <tt>Distribution</tt> field is
-discussed in this section, since it relates to the archive maintenance
-policies.
+of control fields in the <url id="&url-debian-policy;" name="Debian
+Policy Manual"> for the contents of these fields. You can close bugs
+automatically using the <tt>Description</tt> field, see <ref
+id="upload-bugfix">.
- <sect1 id="upload-dist">Picking a distribution
- <p>
-Notably, the <tt>Distribution</tt> field, which originates from the
-<file>debian/changelog</file> file, indicates which distribution the
-package is intended for. There are four possible values for this
-field: `stable', `unstable', `frozen', or `experimental'; these values
-can also be combined. Or, if Debian has been frozen, and you
-want to get a bug-fix release into <em>frozen</em>, you would set the
-distribution to `frozen unstable'. (See <ref id="upload-frozen"> for
-more information on when to upload to <em>frozen</em>.) Note that it
-never makes sense to combine the <em>experimental</em> distribution with
-anything else.
- <p>
-You should avoid combining `stable' with others because of potential
-problems with library dependencies (for your package and for the package
-built by the build daemons for other architecture).
-Also note that setting the distribution to `stable' means
-that the package will be placed into the <tt>proposed-updates</tt>
-directory of the Debian archive for further testing before it is actually
-included in <em>stable</em>. The Release Team (which can be reached at
-&email-debian-release;) will decide if your package can be included in
-stable, therefore if your changelog entry is not clear enough, you may
-want to explain them why you uploaded your package to stable by sending
-them a short explication.
+ <sect1>The original source tarball
<p>
The first time a version is uploaded which corresponds to a particular
upstream version, the original source tar file should be uploaded and
original source should be uploaded, possibly by using the <tt>-sa</tt>
flag.
+
+ <sect1 id="upload-dist">Picking a distribution
+ <p>
+The <tt>Distribution</tt> field, which originates from the first line of
+the <file>debian/changelog</file> file, indicates which distribution the
+package is intended for.
+ <p>
+There are four possible values for this field: `stable', `unstable',
+`frozen', and `experimental'. Normally, packages are uploaded into
+<em>unstable</em>.
+ <p>
+These values can be combined, but only a few combinations make sense.
+If Debian has been frozen, and you want to get a bug-fix release into
+<em>frozen</em>, you would set the distribution to `frozen unstable'.
+See <ref id="upload-frozen"> for more information on uploading to
+<em>frozen</em>.
+ <p>
+You should avoid combining `stable' with others because of potential
+problems with library dependencies (for your package and for the package
+built by the build daemons for other architecture).
+See <ref id="upload-stable"> for more information on when and how to
+upload to <em>stable</em>.
+ <p>
+It never makes sense to combine the <em>experimental</em> distribution
+with anything else.
+
<sect2 id="upload-frozen">Uploading to <em>frozen</em>
<p>
The Debian freeze is a crucial time for Debian. It is our chance to
fix.
-
- <sect1 id="upload-checking">Checking the package prior to upload
- <p>
-Before you upload your package, you should do basic testing on it. At
-a minimum, you should try the following activities (you'll need to
-have an older version of the same Debian package around):
+ <sect2 id="upload-stable">Uploading to <em>stable</em>
+ <p>
+Uploading to <em>stable</em> means that the package will be placed into the
+<tt>proposed-updates</tt> directory of the Debian archive for further
+testing before it is actually included in <em>stable</em>.
+ <p>
+Extra care should be taken when uploading to <em>stable</em>. Basically, a
+package should only be uploaded to stable if one of the following happens:
<list>
- <item>
-Install the package and make sure the software works, or upgrade the
-package from an older version to your new version if a Debian package
-for it already exists.
- <item>
-Run <prgn>lintian</prgn> over the package. You can run
-<prgn>lintian</prgn> as follows: <tt>lintian -v
-<var>package-version</var>.changes</tt>. This will check the source
-package as well as the binary package. If you don't understand the
-output that <prgn>lintian</prgn> generates, try adding the <tt>-i</tt>
-switch, which will cause <prgn>lintian</prgn> to output a very verbose
-description of the problem.
- <p>
-Normally, a package should <em>not</em> be uploaded if it causes lintian
-to emit errors (they will start with <tt>E</tt>).
- <p>
-For more information on <prgn>lintian</prgn>, see <ref id="lintian">.
- <item>
-Downgrade the package to the previous version (if one exists) -- this
-tests the <tt>postrm</tt> and <tt>prerm</tt> scripts.
- <item>
-Remove the package, then reinstall it.
- </list>
+ <item>a security problem (e.g. a Debian security advisory)
+ <item>a truely critical functionality problem
+ <item>the package becomes uninstallable
+ <item>a released architecture lacks the package
+</list>
+ <p>
+It is discouraged to change anything else in the package that isn't
+important, because even trivial fixes can cause bugs later on. Uploading
+new upstream versions to fix security problems is deprecated; applying the
+specific patch from the new upstream version to the old one ("backporting"
+the patch) is the right thing to do in most cases.
+ <p>
+Packages uploaded to <em>stable</em> need to be compiled on systems running
+<em>stable</em>, so that their dependencies are limited to the libraries
+(and other packages) available in <em>stable</em>; for example, a package
+uploaded to <em>stable</em> that depends on a library package that only
+exists in unstable will be rejected. Making changes to dependencies of other
+packages (by messing with <tt>Provides</tt> or shlibs files), possibly making
+those other packages uninstallable, is strongly discouraged.
+ <p>
+The Release Team (which can be reached at &email-debian-release;) will
+regularly evaluate the uploads in <em>proposed-updates</em> and decide if
+your package can be included in <em>stable</em>. Please be clear (and
+verbose, if necessary) in your changelog entries for uploads to
+<em>stable</em>, because otherwise the package won't be considered for
+inclusion.
+
+ <sect id="uploading">Uploading a package
+
<sect1 id="upload-ftp-master">Uploading to <tt>ftp-master</tt>
<p>
To upload a package, you need a personal account on
<ftpsite>ftp-master.debian.org</ftpsite>, which you should have as an
official maintainer. If you use <prgn>scp</prgn> or <prgn>rsync</prgn>
-to transfer the files, place them into <ftppath>&us-upload-dir;</ftppath>;
+to transfer the files, place them into <tt>&us-upload-dir;</tt>;
if you use anonymous FTP to upload, place them into
<ftppath>/pub/UploadQueue/</ftppath>.
<p>
software will process it by running <prgn>dinstall</prgn> on your changes
file: <example>dinstall -n foo.changes</example>
- <sect1 id="upload-non-us">Uploading to <tt>non-us</tt> (pandora)
+ <sect1 id="upload-non-us">Uploading to <tt>non-US</tt> (pandora)
<p>
As discussed above, export controlled software should not be uploaded
-to <tt>ftp-master</tt>. Instead, use <prgn>scp</prgn> or non-anonymous
-FTP to copy the package to <ftpsite>non-us.debian.org</ftpsite>, placing
-the files in <ftppath>&non-us-upload-dir;</ftppath>. By default, you can
+to <tt>ftp-master</tt>. Instead, use <prgn>scp</prgn> or <prgn>rsync</prgn>
+to copy the package to <ftpsite>non-us.debian.org</ftpsite>, placing
+the files in <tt>&non-us-upload-dir;</tt>. By default, you can
use the same account/password that works on <tt>ftp-master</tt>.
+If you use anonymous FTP to upload, place the files into
+<ftppath>/pub/UploadQueue/</ftppath>.
<p>
The program <prgn>dupload</prgn> comes with support for uploading to
<tt>non-us</tt>; please refer to the documentation that comes with
You can check your upload the same way it's done on <tt>ftp-master</tt>,
with:
<example>dinstall -n foo.changes</example>
-
+ <p>
+Note that U.S. residents or citizens are subject to restrictions on
+export of cryptographic software. As of this writing, U.S. citizens are
+allowed to export some cryptographic software, subject to notification
+rules by the U.S. Department of Commerce.
+ <p>
+Debian policy does not prevent upload to non-US by U.S. residents or
+citizens, but care should be taken in doing so. It is recommended that
+developers take all necessary steps to ensure that they are not
+breaking current US law by doing an upload to non-US, <em>including
+consulting a lawyer</em>.
+ <p>
+For packages in non-US main or contrib, developers should at least
+follow the <url id="&url-u.s.-export;" name="procedure outlined by the
+US Government">. Maintainers of non-US/non-free packages should
+further consult these <url id="&url-notification-of-export;"
+name="rules on notification of export"> of non-free software.
+ <p>
+This section is for information only and does not constitute legal
+advice. Again, it is strongly recommended that U.S. citizens and
+residents consult a lawyer before doing uploads to non-US.
+
+
<sect1>Uploads via <tt>chiark</tt>
<p>
If you have a slow network connection to <tt>ftp-master</tt>, there are
`experimental', or `frozen' (when present), the announcement will be
posted to &email-debian-devel-changes; instead.
<p>
-On occasion, it is necessary to upload a package to both the
-<em>stable</em> and <em>unstable</em> distributions; this is done by
-putting both distributions in the <tt>Distribution:</tt> line. In
-such a case the upload announcement will go to both of the above
-mailing lists.
- <p>
The <prgn>dupload</prgn> program is clever enough to determine
where the announcement should go, and will automatically mail the
announcement to the right list. See <ref id="dupload">.
<p>
The Debian archive maintainers are responsible for handling package
uploads. For the most part, uploads are automatically handled on a
-daily basis by archive maintenance tools `dak'
-(also referred to as <prgn>katie</prgn> or <prgn>dinstall</prgn>).
+daily basis by the archive maintenance tools, <prgn>katie</prgn>.
Specifically, updates to existing packages to
the `unstable' distribution are handled automatically. In other cases,
notably new packages, placing the uploaded package into the
patient.
<p>
In any case, you will receive email notification indicating that the
-package has been uploaded. Please examine this notification
-carefully. You may notice that the package didn't go into the section
-you thought you set it to go into. Read on for why.
+package has added to the archive, which also indicates which bugs will
+be closed by the upload. Please examine this notification carefully,
+checking if any bugs you meant to close didn't get triggered.
+ <p>
+The installation notification also includes information on what
+section the package was inserted into. If there is a disparity, you
+will receive a separate email notifying you of that. Read on below.
<sect1 id="override-file">The override file
<p>
<file>debian/control</file> file are actually just hints.
<p>
The archive maintainers keep track of the canonical sections and
-priorities for packages in the <em>override file</em>. Sometimes the
-<em>override file</em> needs correcting. Simply changing the
-package's <file>control</file> file is not going to work. Instead,
-you should email &email-override; or submit a bug against
-<package>ftp.debian.org</package>.
+priorities for packages in the <em>override file</em>. If there is a
+disparity between the <em>override file</em> and the package's fields
+as indicated in <file>debian/control</file>, then you will receive an
+email noting the divergence when the package is installed into the
+archive. You can either correct your <file>debian/control</file> file
+for your next upload, or else you may wish to make a change in the
+<em>override file</em>.
+ <p>
+To alter the actual section that a package is put in, you need to
+first make sure that the <file>debian/control</file> in your package
+is accurate. Next, send an email &email-override; or submit a bug
+against <package>ftp.debian.org</package> requesting that the section
+or priority for your package be changed from the old section or
+priority to the new one. Be sure to explain your reasoning.
<p>
For more information about <em>override files</em>, see <manref
name="dpkg-scanpackages" section="8">, &file-bts-mailing;, and
<p>
This chapter contains information providing guidelines for when and
how NMUs should be done. A fundamental distinction is made between
-source and binary NMUs, which is explained in the next section.
+source and binary-only NMUs, which is explained in the next section.
<sect id="nmu-terms">Terminology
<p>
-There are two new terms used throughout this section: ``binary NMU''
+There are two new terms used throughout this section: ``binary-only NMU''
and ``source NMU''. These terms are used with specific technical
-meaning throughout this document. Both binary and source NMUs are
+meaning throughout this document. Both binary-only and source NMUs are
similar, since they involve an upload of a package by a developer who
is not the official maintainer of that package. That is why it's a
<em>non-maintainer</em> upload.
A source NMU is an upload of a package by a developer who is not the
official maintainer, for the purposes of fixing a bug in the package.
Source NMUs always involves changes to the source (even if it is just
-a change to <file>debian/changelog</file>). This can be either a change
-to the upstream source, or a change to the Debian bits of the source.
- <p>
-A binary NMU is a recompilation and upload of a binary package for a
-new architecture. As such, it is usually part of a porting effort. A
-binary NMU is a non-maintainer uploaded binary version of a package
-(often for another architecture), with no source changes required.
-There are many cases where porters must fix problems in the source in
-order to get them to compile for their target architecture; that would
-be considered a source NMU rather than a binary NMU. As you can see,
-we don't distinguish in terminology between porter NMUs and non-porter
-NMUs.
- <p>
-Both classes of NMUs, source and binary, can be lumped by the term
-``NMU''. However, this often leads to confusion, since most people
-think ``source NMU'' when they think ``NMU''. So it's best to be
-careful. In this chapter, if I use the unqualified term ``NMU'', I
-mean both source and binary NMUs.
+a change to <file>debian/changelog</file>). This can be either a
+change to the upstream source, or a change to the Debian bits of the
+source. Note, however, that source NMUs may also include
+architecture-dependent packages, as well as an updated Debian diff
+(or, more rarely, new upstream source as well).
+ <p>
+A binary-only NMU is a recompilation and upload of a binary package
+for a given architecture. As such, it is usually part of a porting
+effort. A binary-only NMU is a non-maintainer uploaded binary version
+of a package, with no source changes required. There are many cases
+where porters must fix problems in the source in order to get them to
+compile for their target architecture; that would be considered a
+source NMU rather than a binary-only NMU. As you can see, we don't
+distinguish in terminology between porter NMUs and non-porter NMUs.
+ <p>
+Both classes of NMUs, source and binary-only, can be lumped by the
+term ``NMU''. However, this often leads to confusion, since most
+people think ``source NMU'' when they think ``NMU''. So it's best to
+be careful. In this chapter, if we use the unqualified term ``NMU'',
+we refer to any type of non-maintainer upload NMUs, whether source and
+binary, or binary-only.
<sect id="nmu-who">Who can do an NMU
slightly different rules than non-porters, due to their unique
circumstances (see <ref id="source-nmu-when-porter">).
<p>
-Only critical changes or security bug fixes make it into stable. When
-a security bug is detected, a fixed package should be uploaded as soon
-as possible. In this case, the Debian Security Managers should get in
+When a security bug is detected, a fixed package should be uploaded
+as soon as possible. In this case, the Debian security officers get in
contact with the package maintainer to make sure a fixed package is
uploaded within a reasonable time (less than 48 hours). If the package
maintainer cannot provide a fixed package fast enough or if he/she
-cannot be reached in time, the Security Manager may upload a fixed
+cannot be reached in time, a security officer may upload a fixed
package (i.e., do a source NMU).
<p>
During the release freeze (see <ref id="upload-frozen">), NMUs which
this, you'll have to invoke <prgn>dpkg-buildpackage</prgn> with the
<tt>-sa</tt> switch to force the build system to pick up the new
source package (normally it only looks for Debian revisions of '0' or
-'1' -- it's not yet clever enough to know about `0.1').
+'1' — it's not yet clever enough to know about `0.1').
<p>
Remember, porters who are simply recompiling a package for a different
architecture do not need to renumber. Porters should use new version
to be linked against, a bug was fixed in
<package>debhelper</package>), there must still be a changelog entry;
therefore, there will be a patch. If you are a porter, you are
-probably just doing a binary NMU. (Note: this leaves out in the cold
-porters who have to do recompiles -- chalk it up as a weakness in how
+probably just doing a binary-only NMU. (Note: this leaves out in the cold
+porters who have to do recompiles — chalk it up as a weakness in how
we maintain our archive.)
<p>
If the source NMU (non-maintainer upload) fixes some existing bugs,
is different from the original architecture of the package
maintainer's binary package. It is a unique and essential activity.
In fact, porters do most of the actual compiling of Debian packages.
-For instance, for a single <em>i386</em> binary package, there must be a
-recompile for each architecture, which is amounts to five more builds.
+For instance, for a single <em>i386</em> binary package, there must be
+a recompile for each architecture, which is amounts to
+&number-of-arches; more builds.
<sect id="kind-to-porters">Being Kind to Porters
deal with a large volume of packages. Ideally, every source package
should build right out of the box. Unfortunately, this is often not
the case. This section contains a checklist of ``gotchas'' often
-committed by Debian maintainers -- common problems which often stymie
-porters, and make their jobs unnecessarily more difficult.
+committed by Debian maintainers — common problems which often stymie
+porters, and make their jobs unnecessarily difficult.
<p>
The first and most important watchword is to respond quickly to bug or
issues raised by porters. Please treat porters with courtesy, as if
they were in fact co-maintainers of your package (which in a way, they
-are).
+are). Please be tolerant of succinct or even unclear bug reports,
+doing your best to hunt down whatever the problem is.
<p>
By far, most of the problems encountered by porters are caused by
<em>packaging bugs</em> in the source packages. Here is a checklist
<enumlist>
<item>
+Make sure that your <tt>Build-Depends</tt> and
+<tt>Build-Depends-Indep</tt> settings in <file>debian/control</file>
+are set properly. The best way to validate this is to use the
+<package>debootstrap</package> package to create an unstable chroot
+environment. Within that chrooted environment, install the
+<package>build-essential</package> package and any package
+dependancies mention in <tt>Build-Depends</tt> and/or
+<tt>Build-Depends-Indep</tt>. Finally, try building your package
+within that chrooted environment.
+ <p>
+See the <url id="&url-debian-policy;" name="Debian Policy
+Manual"> for instructions on setting build dependencies.
+ <item>
Don't set architecture to a value other than ``all'' or ``any'' unless
you really mean it. In too many cases, maintainers don't follow the
-instructions in the <url id="&url-pkg-manual;" name="Debian Packaging
+instructions in the <url id="&url-debian-policy;" name="Debian Policy
Manual">. Setting your architecture to ``i386'' is usually incorrect.
<item>
Make sure your source package is correct. Do <tt>dpkg-source -x
Don't depend on the package you're building already being installed (a
sub-case of the above issue).
<item>
-Don't rely on <prgn>egcc</prgn> being available; don't rely on
-<prgn>gcc</prgn> being a certain version.
+Don't rely on the compiler being a certain version, if possible. If
+not, then make sure your build dependencies reflect the restrictions,
+although you are probably asking for trouble, since different
+architectures sometimes standardize on different compilers.
<item>
Make sure your debian/rules contains separate ``binary-arch'' and
``binary-indep'' targets, as the Debian Packaging Manual requires.
<p>
If the package builds out of the box for the architecture to be ported
to, you are in luck and your job is easy. This section applies to
-that case; it describes how to build and upload your binary NMU so
+that case; it describes how to build and upload your binary-only NMU so
that it is properly installed into the archive. If you do have to
patch the package in order to get it to compile for the other
architecture, you are actually doing a source NMU, so consult <ref
id="nmu-guidelines"> instead.
<p>
-In a binary NMU, no real changes are being made to the source. You do
+In a binary-only NMU, no real changes are being made to the source. You do
not need to touch any of the files in the source package. This
includes <file>debian/changelog</file>.
<p>
-Sometimes you need to recompile a package against other packages
-which have been updated, such as libraries. You do have to bump the
-version number in this case, so that the upgrade system can function
-properly. Even so, these are considered binary-only NMUs -- there is
-no need in this case for all architectures to recompile. You should
-set the version number as in the case of NMU versioning, but add a
-``.0.'' before the the NMU version. For instance, a recompile-only
-NMU of the source package ``foo_1.3-1'' would be numbered
-``foo_1.3-1.0.1''.
- <p>
The way to invoke <prgn>dpkg-buildpackage</prgn> is as
-<tt>dpkg-buildpackage -B -m<var>porter-email</var></tt>. Of course,
+<tt>dpkg-buildpackage -B -e<var>porter-email</var></tt>. Of course,
set <var>porter-email</var> to your email address. This will do a
binary-only build of only the architecture-dependant portions of the
package, using the `binary-arch' target in <file>debian/rules</file>.
+ <sect1 id="recompile-nmu-versioning">
+ <heading>Recompilation Binary-Only NMU Versioning</heading>
+ <p>
+Sometimes you need to recompile a package against other packages which
+have been updated, such as libraries. You do have to bump the version
+number in this case, so that the version comparison system can
+function properly. Even so, these are considered binary-only NMUs
+— there is no need in this case to trigger all other
+architectures to consider themselves out of date or requiring
+recompilation.
+ <p>
+Such recompilations require special ``magic'' version numbering, so that
+the archive maintenance tools recognize that, even though there is a
+new Debian version, there is no corresponding source update. If you
+get this wrong, the archive maintainers will reject your upload (due
+to lack of corresponding source code).
+ <p>
+The ``magic'' for a recompilation-only NMU is triggered by using the
+third-level number on the Debian part of the version. For instance,
+if the latest version you are recompiling against was version
+``2.9-3'', your NMU should carry a version of ``2.9-3.0.1''. If the
+latest version was ``3.4-2.1'', your NMU should have a version number
+of ``3.4-2.1.1''.
+
<sect1 id="source-nmu-when-porter">
<heading>When to do a source NMU if you are a porter</heading>
<p>
However, if you are a porter doing an NMU for `unstable', the above
guidelines for porting should be followed, with two variations.
-Firstly, the acceptable waiting period -- the time between when the
-bug is submitted to the BTS and when it is OK to do an NMU -- is seven
+Firstly, the acceptable waiting period &mdash the time between when the
+bug is submitted to the BTS and when it is OK to do an NMU — is seven
days for porters working on the unstable distribution. This period
can be shortened if the problem is critical and imposes hardship on
the porting effort, at the discretion of the porter group. (Remember,
<p>
If you need to change the section for one of your packages, change the
package control information to place the package in the desired
-section, and re-upload the package (see the <url id="&url-pkg-manual;"
-name="Debian Packaging Manual"> for details). Carefully examine the
+section, and re-upload the package (see the <url id="&url-debian-policy;"
+name="Debian Policy Manual"> for details). Carefully examine the
installation log sent to you when the package is installed into the
archive. If for some reason the old location of the package remains,
file a bug against <tt>ftp.debian.org</tt> asking that the old
Sometimes you made a mistake naming the package and you need to rename
it. In this case, you need to follow a two-step process. First, set
your <file>debian/control</file> file to replace and conflict with the
-obsolete name of the package (see the <url id="&url-pkg-manual;"
-name="Debian Packaging Manual"> for details). Once you've uploaded
+obsolete name of the package (see the <url id="&url-debian-policy;"
+name="Debian Policy Manual"> for details). Once you've uploaded
that package, and the package has moved into the archive, file a bug
against <tt>ftp.debian.org</tt> asking to remove the package with the
obsolete name.
If you can no longer maintain a package, you need to inform the others
about that, and see that the package is marked as orphaned.
you should set the package maintainer to <tt>Debian QA Group
-<debian-qa@lists.debian.org></tt> and submit a bug report
-against the pseudo package <tt>wnpp</tt>. The bug report should be
+&orphan-address;</tt> and submit a bug report
+against the pseudo package <package>wnpp</package>. The bug report should be
titled <tt>O: <var>package</var> -- <var>short description</var></tt>
indicating that the package is now orphaned. The severity of the bug
-should be set to <em>normal</em>. If the package is especially
-crucial to Debian, you should instead submit a bug against
-<tt>wnpp</tt> and title it <tt>RFA: <var>package</var> -- <var>short
-description</var></tt> and set its severity to <em>important</em>. You
-should also email &email-debian-devel; asking for a new maintainer.
+should be set to <em>normal</em>. If you feel it's necessary, send a copy
+to &email-debian-devel; by putting the address in the X-Debbugs-CC: header
+of the message (no, don't use CC:, because that way the message's subject
+won't indicate the bug number).
+ <p>
+If the package is especially crucial to Debian, you should instead submit
+a bug against <tt>wnpp</tt> and title it <tt>RFA: <var>package</var> --
+<var>short description</var></tt> and set its severity to
+<em>important</em>. Definitely copy the message to debian-devel in this
+case, as described above.
<p>
Read instructions on the <url id="&url-wnpp;" name="WNPP web pages">
for more information.
page for information and procedures.
<p>
It is not OK to simply take over a package that you feel is neglected
--- that would be package hijacking. You can, of course, contact the
+— that would be package hijacking. You can, of course, contact the
current maintainer and ask them if you may take over the package.
However, without their assent, you may not take over the package.
Even if they ignore you, that is still not grounds to take over a
-
<chapt id="bug-handling">Handling Bugs
<sect>Monitoring bugs
<sect>Reporting lots of bugs at once
<p>
Reporting a great number of bugs for the same problem on a great
-number of different packages -- i.e., more than 10 -- is a deprecated
+number of different packages &mdash i.e., more than 10 &mdash is a deprecated
practice. Take all possible steps to avoid submitting bulk bugs at
all. For instance, if checking for the problem can be automated, add
a new check to <package>lintian</package> so that an error or warning
list.
+ <chapt id="newmaint">
+ <heading>Interaction with Prospective Developers</heading>
+
+ <p>
+This chapter describes procedures that existing Debian developers should
+follow when it comes to dealing with wannabe developers.
+
+ <sect>Sponsoring packages
+ <p>
+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.
+ <p>
+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 FTP admins will also have to
+inspect it before letting it in.)
+ <p>
+Sponsoring merely by signing the upload or just recompiling is
+<strong>definitely not recommended</strong>. 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.
+ <p>
+If you are an application manager for a prospective developer, you can also
+be their sponsor. That way you can also verify the how the applicant is
+handling the `Tasks and Skills' part of their application.
+
+ <sect>Advocating new developers
+ <p>
+See the page about <url id="&url-newmaint-advocate;"
+name="advocating a prospective developer"> at the Debian web site.
+
+ <sect>Handling new maintainer applications
+ <p>
+Please see <url id="&url-newmaint-amchecklist;" name="Checklist for
+Application Managers"> at the Debian web site.
+
+
+
<chapt id="tools">Overview of Debian Maintainer Tools
<p>
This section contains a rough overview of the tools available to
id="upload-checking"> and <ref id="lintian-reports">.
+ <sect id="debconf">
+ <heading><package>debconf</package></heading>
+ <p>
+<package>debconf</package> provides a consistent interface to
+configuring packages interactively. It is user interface
+intedependant, allowing end-users to configure packages with a
+text-only interface, an HTML interface, or a dialog interface. New
+interfaces can be added modularly.
+ <p>
+Many feel that this system should be used for all packages requiring
+interactive configuration. <package>debconf</package> is not
+currently required by Debian Policy, however, that may change in the
+future.
+
+
<sect id="debhelper">
<heading><package>debhelper</package>
<p>
~ianmdlvl / developers-reference.git / blobdiff