<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE chapter PUBLIC "-//OASIS//DTD DocBook XML V4.4//EN"
"http://www.oasis-open.org/docbook/xml/4.4/docbookx.dtd" [
- <!ENTITY % commondata SYSTEM "common.ent" > %commondata;
+ <!ENTITY % commondata SYSTEM "common.ent" > %commondata;
]>
<chapter id="pkgs">
<title>Managing Packages</title>
current URL where it can be downloaded from.
</para>
<para>
-You should set the subject of the bug to ``ITP: <replaceable>foo</replaceable>
--- <replaceable>short description</replaceable>'', substituting the name of the
-new package for <replaceable>foo</replaceable>. The severity of the bug report
-must be set to <emphasis>wishlist</emphasis>. If you feel it's necessary, send
-a copy to <email>debian-devel@&lists-host;</email> by putting the address
-in the <literal>X-Debbugs-CC:</literal> header of the message (no, don't use
-<literal>CC:</literal>, because that way the message's subject won't indicate
-the bug number).
+You should set the subject of the bug to <literal>ITP:
+<replaceable>foo</replaceable> -- <replaceable>short
+description</replaceable></literal>, substituting the name of the new
+package for <replaceable>foo</replaceable>.
+The severity of the bug report must be set to <literal>wishlist</literal>.
+Please send a copy to &email-debian-devel; by using the X-Debbugs-CC
+header (don't use CC:, because that way the message's subject won't
+indicate the bug number). If you are packaging so many new packages (>10)
+that notifying the mailing list in seperate messages is too disruptive,
+do send a summary after filing the bugs to the debian-devel list instead.
+This will inform the other developers about upcoming packages and will
+allow a review of your description and package name.
</para>
<para>
Please include a <literal>Closes:
<para>
It lets the rest of the maintainers know more about the package than the one
line description and the usual changelog entry ``Initial release'' that gets
-posted to <literal>debian-devel-changes</literal>.
+posted to &email-debian-devel-changes;.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-It is helpful to the people who live off unstable (and form our first line of
-testers). We should encourage these people.
+It is helpful to the people who live off <literal>unstable</literal> (and form
+our first line of testers). We should encourage these people.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
The <filename>debian/changelog</filename> file conforms to a certain structure,
with a number of different fields. One field of note, the
-<emphasis>distribution</emphasis>, is described in <xref
+<literal>distribution</literal>, is described in <xref
linkend="distribution"/> . More information about the structure of this file
can be found in the Debian Policy section titled
<filename>debian/changelog</filename>.
<itemizedlist>
<listitem>
<para>
-the so-called <emphasis>native</emphasis> packages, where there is no
+the so-called <literal>native</literal> packages, where there is no
distinction between the original sources and the patches applied for Debian
</para>
</listitem>
<literal>Distribution</literal> field of the <literal>.changes</literal> file.
</para>
<para>
-There are several possible values for this field: `stable', `unstable',
-`testing-proposed-updates' and `experimental'. Normally, packages are uploaded
-into <emphasis>unstable</emphasis>.
+There are several possible values for this field: <literal>stable</literal>,
+<literal>unstable</literal>, <literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal> and
+<literal>experimental</literal>. Normally, packages are uploaded into
+<literal>unstable</literal>.
</para>
<para>
-Actually, there are two other possible distributions: `stable-security' and
-`testing-security', but read <xref linkend="bug-security"/> for more
-information on those.
+Actually, there are two other possible distributions: <literal>stable-security
+</literal> and <literal>testing-security</literal>, but read
+<xref linkend="bug-security"/> for more information on those.
</para>
<para>
It is not possible to upload a package into several distributions at the same
time.
</para>
<section id="upload-stable">
-<title>Special case: uploads to the <emphasis>stable</emphasis> distribution</title>
+<title>Special case: uploads to the <literal>stable</literal> and
+<literal>oldstable</literal> distributions</title>
<para>
-Uploading to <emphasis>stable</emphasis> means that the package will transfered
-to the <emphasis>p-u-new</emphasis>-queue for review by the stable release
-managers, and if approved will be installed in
+Uploading to <literal>stable</literal> means that the package will transfered
+to the <literal>proposed-updates-new</literal> queue for review by the stable
+release managers, and if approved will be installed in
<filename>stable-proposed-updates</filename> directory of the Debian archive.
-From there, it will be included in <emphasis>stable</emphasis> with the next
+From there, it will be included in <literal>stable</literal> with the next
point release.
</para>
<para>
-Extra care should be taken when uploading to <emphasis>stable</emphasis>.
-Basically, a package should only be uploaded to stable if one of the following
-happens:
+To ensure that your upload will be accepted, you should discuss the changes
+with the stable release team before you upload. For that, send a mail to
+the &email-debian-release; mailing list, including the patch you want to
+apply to the package version currently in <literal>stable</literal>. Always
+be verbose and detailed in your changelog entries for uploads to the
+<literal>stable</literal> distribution.
+</para>
+<para>
+Extra care should be taken when uploading to <literal>stable</literal>.
+Basically, a package should only be uploaded to <literal>stable</literal> if
+one of the following happens:
</para>
<itemizedlist>
<listitem>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>
<para>
-In the past, uploads to <emphasis>stable</emphasis> were used to address
+In the past, uploads to <literal>stable</literal> were used to address
security problems as well. However, this practice is deprecated, as uploads
used for Debian security advisories are automatically copied to the appropriate
<filename>proposed-updates</filename> archive when the advisory is released.
See <xref linkend="bug-security"/> for detailed information on handling
-security problems.
+security problems. If the security teams deems the problem to be too
+benign to be fixed through a <literal>DSA</literal>, the stable release
+managers are usually willing to include your fix nonetheless in a regular
+upload to <literal>stable</literal>.
</para>
<para>
Changing anything else in the package that isn't important is discouraged,
because even trivial fixes can cause bugs later on.
</para>
<para>
-Packages uploaded to <emphasis>stable</emphasis> need to be compiled on systems
-running <emphasis>stable</emphasis>, so that their dependencies are limited to
-the libraries (and other packages) available in <emphasis>stable</emphasis>;
-for example, a package uploaded to <emphasis>stable</emphasis> that depends on
-a library package that only exists in unstable will be rejected. Making
-changes to dependencies of other packages (by messing with
-<literal>Provides</literal> or shlibs files), possibly making those other
-packages uninstallable, is strongly discouraged.
+Packages uploaded to <literal>stable</literal> need to be compiled on systems
+running <literal>stable</literal>, so that their dependencies are limited to
+the libraries (and other packages) available in <literal>stable</literal>;
+for example, a package uploaded to <literal>stable</literal> that depends on
+a library package that only exists in <literal>unstable</literal> will be
+rejected. Making changes to dependencies of other packages (by messing with
+<literal>Provides</literal> or <literal>shlibs</literal> files), possibly
+making those other packages uninstallable, is strongly discouraged.
</para>
<para>
-The Release Team (which can be reached at
-<email>debian-release@&lists-host;</email>) will regularly evaluate the
-uploads To <emphasis>stable-proposed-updates</emphasis> and decide if your
-package can be included in <emphasis>stable</emphasis>. Please be clear (and
-verbose, if necessary) in your changelog entries for uploads to
-<emphasis>stable</emphasis>, because otherwise the package won't be considered
-for inclusion.
-</para>
-<para>
-It's best practice to speak with the stable release manager
-<emphasis>before</emphasis> uploading to
-<emphasis>stable</emphasis>/<emphasis>stable-proposed-updates</emphasis>, so
-that the uploaded package fits the needs of the next point release.
+Uploads to the <literal>oldstable</literal> distributions are possible as
+long as it hasn't been archived. The same rules as for <literal>stable
+</literal> apply.
</para>
</section>
<section id="upload-t-p-u">
-<title>Special case: uploads to <emphasis>testing/testing-proposed-updates</emphasis></title>
+<title>Special case: uploads to <literal>testing/testing-proposed-updates</literal></title>
<para>
Please see the information in the <link linkend="t-p-u">testing
section</link> for details.
the directory <ulink
url="ftp://&ftp-master-host;&upload-queue;">&upload-queue;</ulink>.
To get the files processed there, they need to be signed with a key in the
-debian keyring.
+Debian Developers keyring or the Debian Maintainers keyring
+(see <ulink url="&url-wiki-dm;"></ulink>).
</para>
<para>
Please note that you should transfer the changes file last. Otherwise, your
</para>
</section>
-<section id="upload-non-us">
-<title>Uploading to <literal>non-US</literal></title>
-<para>
-<emphasis>Note:</emphasis> non-us was discontinued with the release of sarge.
-</para>
-</section>
-
<section id="delayed-incoming">
<title>Delayed uploads</title>
<para>
-Delayed uploads are done for the moment via the delayed queue at gluck. The
-upload-directory is <literal>gluck:~tfheen/DELAYED/[012345678]-day</literal>.
-0-day is uploaded multiple times per day to ftp-master.
+Delayed uploads are done for the moment via the delayed queue at <literal>gluck
+</literal>. The upload-directory is
+<literal>gluck:~tfheen/DELAYED/[012345678]-day</literal>. 0-day is uploaded
+multiple times per day to <literal>&ftp-master-host;</literal>.
</para>
<para>
With a fairly recent dput, this section
incoming = ~tfheen
</screen>
<para>
-in ~/.dput.cf should work fine for uploading to the DELAYED queue.
+in <filename>~/.dput.cf</filename> should work fine for uploading to the
+<literal>DELAYED</literal> queue.
</para>
<para>
<emphasis>Note:</emphasis> Since this upload queue goes to
-<literal>ftp-master</literal>, the prescription found in <xref
+<literal>&ftp-master-host;</literal>, the prescription found in <xref
linkend="upload-ftp-master"/> applies here as well.
</para>
</section>
<title>Security uploads</title>
<para>
Do <emphasis role="strong">NOT</emphasis> upload a package to the security
-upload queue (oldstable-security, stable-security, etc.) without prior
-authorization from the security team. If the package does not exactly meet the
-team's requirements, it will cause many problems and delays in dealing with the
-unwanted upload. For details, please see section <xref
-linkend="bug-security"/> .
+upload queue (<literal>oldstable-security</literal>, <literal>stable-security
+</literal>, etc.) without prior authorization from the security team. If the
+package does not exactly meet the team's requirements, it will cause many
+problems and delays in dealing with the unwanted upload. For details, please
+see section <xref linkend="bug-security"/> .
</para>
</section>
<section id="s5.6.5">
<title>Other upload queues</title>
<para>
-The scp queues on ftp-master, and security are mostly unusable due to the login
-restrictions on those hosts.
+The scp queues on <literal>&ftp-master-host;</literal>, and <literal>
+security.debian.org</literal> are mostly unusable due to the login restrictions
+on those hosts.
</para>
<para>
The anonymous queues on ftp.uni-erlangen.de and ftp.uk.debian.org are currently
The queue in Japan will be replaced with a new queue on hp.debian.or.jp some
day.
</para>
-<para>
-For the time being, the anonymous ftp queue on auric.debian.org (the former
-ftp-master) works, but it is deprecated and will be removed at some point in
-the future.
-</para>
</section>
<section id="upload-notification">
The Debian archive maintainers are responsible for handling package uploads.
For the most part, uploads are automatically handled on a daily basis by the
archive maintenance tools, <command>katie</command>. Specifically, updates to
-existing packages to the `unstable' distribution are handled automatically. In
-other cases, notably new packages, placing the uploaded package into the
-distribution is handled manually. When uploads are handled manually, the
-change to the archive may take up to a month to occur. Please be patient.
+existing packages to the <literal>unstable</literal> distribution are handled
+automatically. In other cases, notably new packages, placing the uploaded
+package into the distribution is handled manually. When uploads are handled
+manually, the change to the archive may take up to a month to occur. Please
+be patient.
</para>
<para>
In any case, you will receive an email notification indicating that the package
</para>
<para>
The archive maintainers keep track of the canonical sections and priorities for
-packages in the <emphasis>override file</emphasis>. If there is a disparity
-between the <emphasis>override file</emphasis> and the package's fields as
+packages in the <literal>override file</literal>. If there is a disparity
+between the <literal>override file</literal> and the package's fields as
indicated in <filename>debian/control</filename>, then you will receive an
email noting the divergence when the package is installed into the archive.
You can either correct your <filename>debian/control</filename> file for your
-next upload, or else you may wish to make a change in the <emphasis>override
-file</emphasis>.
+next upload, or else you may wish to make a change in the <literal>override
+file</literal>.
</para>
<para>
To alter the actual section that a package is put in, you need to first make
sure that the <filename>debian/control</filename> file in your package is
-accurate. Next, send an email <email>override-change@debian.org</email> or
-submit a bug against <systemitem role="package">&ftp-debian-org;</systemitem>
-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.
+accurate. Next, send an email &email-override; or submit a
+bug against <systemitem role="package">ftp.debian.org</systemitem> 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.
</para>
<para>
-For more information about <emphasis>override files</emphasis>, see
+For more information about <literal>override files</literal>, see
<citerefentry> <refentrytitle>dpkg-scanpackages</refentrytitle>
<manvolnum>1</manvolnum> </citerefentry> and <ulink
url="&url-bts-devel;#maintincorrect"></ulink>.
</para>
<para>
Maintainers interact with the BTS via email addresses at
-<literal>&bugs-host;</literal>. Documentation on available commands can be
-found at <ulink url="&url-bts;"></ulink>, or, if you have
-installed the <systemitem role="package">doc-debian</systemitem> package, you
-can look at the local files <filename>/usr/share/doc/debian/bug-*</filename>.
+<literal>&bugs-host;</literal>. Documentation on available
+commands can be found at <ulink url="&url-bts;"></ulink>, or,
+if you have installed the <systemitem role="package">doc-debian</systemitem>
+package, you can look at the local files &file-bts-docs;.
</para>
<para>
Some find it useful to get periodic reports on open bugs. You can add a cron
</para>
<para>
Once you've dealt with a bug report (e.g. fixed it), mark it as
-<emphasis>done</emphasis> (close it) by sending an explanation message to
+<literal>done</literal> (close it) by sending an explanation message to
<email>123-done@&bugs-host;</email>. If you're fixing a bug by changing
and uploading the package, you can automate bug closing as described in <xref
linkend="upload-bugfix"/> .
</para>
<para>
You should <emphasis>never</emphasis> close bugs via the bug server
-<literal>close</literal> command sent to
-<email>control@&bugs-host;</email>. If you do so, the original submitter
-will not receive any information about why the bug was closed.
+<literal>close</literal> command sent to &email-bts-control;.
+If you do so, the original submitter will not receive any information about why
+the bug was closed.
</para>
</section>
technical committee by reassigning the bug to <systemitem
role="package">tech-ctte</systemitem> (you may use the clone command of the BTS
if you wish to keep it reported against your package). Before doing so, please
-read the <ulink url="&url-devel-docs;tech-ctte">recommended
+read the <ulink url="&url-tech-ctte;">recommended
procedure</ulink>.
</para>
</listitem>
If the bug is real but it's caused by another package, just reassign the bug to
the right package. If you don't know which package it should be reassigned to,
you should ask for help on <link linkend="irc-channels">IRC</link> or
-on <email>debian-devel@&lists-host;</email>. Please make sure that the
-maintainer(s) of the package the bug is reassigned to know why you reassigned
-it.
+on &email-debian-devel;. Please inform the maintainer(s) of the package
+you reassign the bug to, for example by Cc:ing the message that does the
+reassign to <email>packagename@packages.debian.org</email> and explaining
+your reasons in that mail. Please note that a simple reassignment is
+<emphasis>not</emphasis> e-mailed to the maintainers of the package
+being reassigned to, so they won't know about it until they look at
+a bug overview for their packages.
</para>
<para>
+If the bug affects the operation of your package, please consider
+cloning the bug and reassigning the clone to the package that really
+causes the behavior. Otherwise, the bug will not be shown in your
+package's bug list, possibly causing users to report the same bug over
+and over again. You should block "your" bug with the reassigned, cloned
+bug to document the relationship.
+</para>
+</listitem>
+<listitem>
+<para>
Sometimes you also have to adjust the severity of the bug so that it matches
our definition of the severity. That's because people tend to inflate the
severity of bugs to make sure their bugs are fixed quickly. Some bugs may even
<para>
If the bug is related to the packaging, you just fix it. If you are not able
to fix it yourself, then tag the bug as <literal>help</literal>. You can also
-ask for help on <email>debian-devel@&lists-host;</email> or
-<email>debian-qa@&lists-host;</email>. If it's an upstream problem, you
-have to forward it to the upstream author. Forwarding a bug is not enough, you
-have to check at each release if the bug has been fixed or not. If it has, you
-just close it, otherwise you have to remind the author about it. If you have
-the required skills you can prepare a patch that fixes the bug and send it to
-the author at the same time. Make sure to send the patch to the BTS and to tag
-the bug as <literal>patch</literal>.
+ask for help on &email-debian-devel; or
+&email-debian-qa;. If it's an upstream problem, you have to
+forward it to the upstream author. Forwarding a bug is not enough, you have to
+check at each release if the bug has been fixed or not. If it has, you just
+close it, otherwise you have to remind the author about it. If you have the
+required skills you can prepare a patch that fixes the bug and send it to the
+author at the same time. Make sure to send the patch to the BTS and to tag the
+bug as <literal>patch</literal>.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-Once a corrected package is available in the <emphasis>unstable</emphasis>
-distribution, you can close the bug. This can be done automatically, read
-<xref linkend="upload-bugfix"/> .
+Once a corrected package is available in the archive, the bug should be
+closed indicating the version in which it was fixed. This can be done
+automatically, read <xref linkend="upload-bugfix"/>.
</para>
</listitem>
</orderedlist>
don't hesitate to undo any damage the error caused. To reopen wrongly closed
bugs, send a <literal>reopen <replaceable>XXX</replaceable></literal> command
to the bug tracking system's control address,
-<email>control@&bugs-host;</email>. To close any remaining bugs that were
+&email-bts-control;. To close any remaining bugs that were
fixed by your upload, email the <filename>.changes</filename> file to
<email>XXX-done@&bugs-host;</email>, where <replaceable>XXX</replaceable>
is the bug number, and put Version: YYY and an empty line as the first two
The Debian Security Team exists to coordinate this activity, keeping track of
outstanding security problems, helping maintainers with security problems or
fixing them themselves, sending security advisories, and maintaining
-security.debian.org.
+<literal>security.debian.org</literal>.
</para>
<!-- information about the security database goes here once it's ready -->
<!-- (mdz) -->
When you become aware of a security-related bug in a Debian package, whether or
not you are the maintainer, collect pertinent information about the problem,
and promptly contact the security team at
-<email>team@security.debian.org</email> as soon as possible. <emphasis
-role="strong">DO NOT UPLOAD</emphasis> any packages for stable; the security
-team will do that. Useful information includes, for example:
+&email-security-team; as soon as possible. <emphasis
+role="strong">DO NOT UPLOAD</emphasis> any packages for <literal>stable</literal>;
+ the security team will do that. Useful information includes, for example:
</para>
<itemizedlist>
<listitem>
<para>
Which versions of the package are known to be affected by the bug. Check each
-version that is present in a supported Debian release, as well as testing and
-unstable.
+version that is present in a supported Debian release, as well as
+<literal>testing</literal> and <literal>unstable</literal>.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
be sure to mention this fact.
</para>
<para>
-Please note that if secrecy is needed you may not upload a fix to unstable (or
+Please note that if secrecy is needed you may not upload a fix to
+<literal>unstable</literal> (or
anywhere else, such as a public CVS repository). It is not sufficient to
obfuscate the details of the change, as the code itself is public, and can (and
will) be examined by the general public.
<title>Security Advisories</title>
<para>
Security advisories are only issued for the current, released stable
-distribution, and <emphasis>not</emphasis> for testing or unstable. When
-released, advisories are sent to the
-<email>debian-security-announce@&lists-host;</email> mailing list and
-posted on <ulink url="http://&www-debian-org;/security/">the security web
+distribution, and <emphasis>not</emphasis> for <literal>testing</literal>
+or <literal>unstable</literal>. When released, advisories are sent to the
+&email-debian-security-announce; mailing list and posted on
+<ulink url="&url-debian-security-advisories;">the security web
page</ulink>. Security advisories are written and posted by the security team.
However they certainly do not mind if a maintainer can supply some of the
information for them, or write part of the text. Information that should be in
<listitem>
<para>
Target the right distribution in your <filename>debian/changelog</filename>.
-For stable this is <literal>stable-security</literal> and for testing this is
-<literal>testing-security</literal>, and for the previous stable release, this
-is <literal>oldstable-security</literal>. Do not target
-<replaceable>distribution</replaceable>-proposed-updates or
+For <literal>stable</literal> this is <literal>stable-security</literal> and
+for testing this is <literal>testing-security</literal>, and for the previous
+stable release, this is <literal>oldstable-security</literal>. Do not target
+<replaceable>distribution</replaceable><literal>-proposed-updates</literal> or
<literal>stable</literal>!
</para>
</listitem>
Make descriptive, meaningful changelog entries. Others will rely on them to
determine whether a particular bug was fixed. Always include an external
reference, preferably a CVE identifier, so that it can be cross-referenced.
-Include the same information in the changelog for unstable, so that it is clear
+Include the same information in the changelog for <literal>unstable</literal>,
+so that it is clear
that the same bug was fixed, as this is very helpful when verifying that the
bug is fixed in the next stable release. If a CVE identifier has not yet been
assigned, the security team will request one so that it can be included in the
package, but less than package versions in later distributions. If in doubt,
test it with <literal>dpkg --compare-versions</literal>. Be careful not to
re-use a version number that you have already used for a previous upload. For
-<emphasis>testing</emphasis>, there must be a higher version in
-<emphasis>unstable</emphasis>. If there is none yet (for example, if
-<emphasis>testing</emphasis> and <emphasis>unstable</emphasis> have the same
-version) you must upload a new version to unstable first.
+<literal>testing</literal>, there must be a higher version in
+<literal>unstable</literal>. If there is none yet (for example, if
+<literal>testing</literal> and <literal>unstable</literal> have the same
+version) you must upload a new version to <literal>unstable</literal> first.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-Unless the upstream source has been uploaded to security.debian.org before (by
-a previous security update), build the upload with full upstream source
-(<literal>dpkg-buildpackage -sa</literal>). If there has been a previous
-upload to security.debian.org with the same upstream version, you may upload
-without upstream source (<literal>dpkg-buildpackage -sd</literal>).
+Unless the upstream source has been uploaded to <literal>security.debian.org
+</literal> before (by a previous security update), build the upload with full
+upstream source (<literal>dpkg-buildpackage -sa</literal>). If there has been
+a previous upload to <literal>security.debian.org</literal> with the same
+upstream version, you may upload without upstream source (<literal>
+dpkg-buildpackage -sd</literal>).
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<title>Uploading the fixed package</title>
<para>
Do <emphasis role="strong">NOT</emphasis> upload a package to the security
-upload queue (oldstable-security, stable-security, etc.) without prior
-authorization from the security team. If the package does not exactly meet the
-team's requirements, it will cause many problems and delays in dealing with the
-unwanted upload.
+upload queue (<literal>oldstable-security</literal>, <literal>stable-security
+</literal>, etc.) without prior authorization from the security team. If the
+package does not exactly meet the team's requirements, it will cause many
+problems and delays in dealing with the unwanted upload.
</para>
<para>
-Do <emphasis role="strong">NOT</emphasis> upload your fix to proposed-updates
-without coordinating with the security team. Packages from security.debian.org
-will be copied into the proposed-updates directory automatically. If a package
+Do <emphasis role="strong">NOT</emphasis> upload your fix to <literal>
+proposed-updates</literal> without coordinating with the security team.
+Packages from <literal>security.debian.org</literal> will be copied into
+the <literal>proposed-updates</literal> directory automatically. If a package
with the same or a higher version number is already installed into the archive,
the security update will be rejected by the archive system. That way, the
stable distribution will end up without a security update for this package
</para>
<para>
If a member of the security team accepts a package, it will be installed on
-security.debian.org as well as proposed for the proper
-<replaceable>distribution</replaceable>-proposed-updates on ftp-master.
+<literal>security.debian.org</literal> as well as proposed for the proper
+<replaceable>distribution</replaceable><literal>-proposed-updates</literal>
+on <literal>&ftp-master-host;</literal>.
</para>
</section>
understand what happened.
</para>
<para>
-If, on the other hand, you need to change the <emphasis>subsection</emphasis>
+If, on the other hand, you need to change the <literal>subsection</literal>
of one of your packages (e.g., ``devel'', ``admin''), the procedure is slightly
different. Correct the subsection as found in the control file of the package,
and re-upload that. Also, you'll need to get the override file updated, as
<para>
If for some reason you want to completely remove a package (say, if it is an
old compatibility library which is no longer required), you need to file a bug
-against <literal>&ftp-debian-org;</literal> asking that the package be removed;
-as all bugs, this bug should normally have normal severity. Make sure you
-indicate which distribution the package should be removed from. Normally, you
-can only have packages removed from <emphasis>unstable</emphasis> and
-<emphasis>experimental</emphasis>. Packages are not removed from
-<emphasis>testing</emphasis> directly. Rather, they will be removed
+against <literal>ftp.debian.org</literal> asking that the package be removed;
+as all bugs, this bug should normally have normal severity.
+The bug title should be in the form <literal>RM: <replaceable>package
+</replaceable> <replaceable>[architecture list]</replaceable> --
+<replaceable>reason</replaceable></literal>, where <replaceable>package</replaceable>
+is the package to be removed and <replaceable>reason</replaceable> is a
+short summary of the reason for the removal request.
+<replaceable>[architecture list]</replaceable> is optional and only needed
+if the removal request only applies to some architectures, not all. Note
+that the <command>reportbug</command> will create a title conforming
+to these rules when you use it to report a bug against the <literal>
+ftp.debian.org</literal> pseudo-package.
+</para>
+
+<para>
+If you want to remove a package you maintain, you should note this in
+the bug title by prepending <literal>ROM</literal> (Request Of Maintainer).
+There are several other standard acronyms used in the reasoning for a package
+removal, see <ulink url="http://&ftp-master-host;/removals.html"></ulink>
+for a complete list. That page also provides a convenient overview of
+pending removal requests.
+</para>
+
+<para>
+Note that removals can only be done for the <literal>unstable
+</literal>, <literal>experimental</literal> and <literal>stable
+</literal> distribution. Packages are not removed from
+<literal>testing</literal> directly. Rather, they will be removed
automatically after the package has been removed from
-<emphasis>unstable</emphasis> and no package in <emphasis>testing</emphasis>
-depends on it.
+<literal>unstable</literal> and no package in <literal>testing
+</literal> depends on it.
</para>
<para>
There is one exception when an explicit removal request is not necessary: If a
<para>
Usually you only ask for the removal of a package maintained by yourself. If
you want to remove another package, you have to get the approval of its
-maintainer.
+maintainer. Should the package be orphaned and thus have no maintainer,
+you should first discuss the removal request on &email-debian-qa;. If
+there is a consensus that the package should be removed, you should
+reassign and retitle the <literal>O:</literal> bug filed against the
+<literal>wnpp</literal> package instead of filing a new bug as
+removal request.
</para>
<para>
Further information relating to these and other package removal related topics
</para>
<para>
If in doubt concerning whether a package is disposable, email
-<email>debian-devel@&lists-host;</email> asking for opinions. Also of
-interest is the <command>apt-cache</command> program from the <systemitem
+&email-debian-devel; asking for opinions. Also of interest is
+the <command>apt-cache</command> program from the <systemitem
role="package">apt</systemitem> package. When invoked as <literal>apt-cache
showpkg <replaceable>package</replaceable></literal>, the program will show
details for <replaceable>package</replaceable>, including reverse depends.
Other useful programs include <literal>apt-cache rdepends</literal>,
-<command>apt-rdepends</command> and <command>grep-dctrl</command>. Removal of
-orphaned packages is discussed on <email>debian-qa@&lists-host;</email>.
+<command>apt-rdepends</command>, <command>build-rdeps</command> (in the
+<systemitem role="package">devscripts</systemitem> package) and
+<command>grep-dctrl</command>. Removal of
+orphaned packages is discussed on &email-debian-qa;.
</para>
<para>
Once the package has been removed, the package's bugs should be handled. They
incoming system, this is no longer possible. Instead, you have to upload a new
revision of your package with a higher version than the package you want to
replace. Both versions will be installed in the archive but only the higher
-version will actually be available in <emphasis>unstable</emphasis> since the
+version will actually be available in <literal>unstable</literal> since the
previous version will immediately be replaced by the higher. However, if you
do proper testing of your packages, the need to replace a package should not
occur too often anyway.
<section id="s5.9.3">
<title>Replacing or renaming packages</title>
<para>
-When you make a mistake naming your package, you should follow a two-step
-process to rename it. First, set your <filename>debian/control</filename> file
-to replace and conflict with the obsolete name of the package (see the <ulink
-url="&url-debian-policy;">Debian Policy Manual</ulink> for
-details). Once you've uploaded the package and the package has moved into the
-archive, file a bug against <literal>&ftp-debian-org;</literal> asking to remove
-the package with the obsolete name. Do not forget to properly reassign the
-package's bugs at the same time.
+When the upstream maintainers for one of your packages chose to
+rename their software (or you made a mistake naming your package),
+you should follow a two-step process to rename it. In the first
+step, change the <filename>debian/control</filename> file to
+reflect the new name and to replace, provide and conflict with the
+obsolete package name (see the <ulink url="&url-debian-policy;">
+Debian Policy Manual</ulink> for details). Please note that you
+should only add a <literal>Provides</literal> relation if all
+packages depending on the obsolete package name continue to work
+after the renaming. Once you've uploaded the package and the package
+has moved into the archive, file a bug against <literal>
+ftp.debian.org</literal> asking to remove the package with the
+obsolete name (see <xref linkend="removing-pkgs"/>). Do not forget
+to properly reassign the package's bugs at the same time.
</para>
<para>
At other times, you may make a mistake in constructing your package and wish to
<para>
If you can no longer maintain a package, you need to inform others, and see
that the package is marked as orphaned. You should set the package maintainer
-to <literal>Debian QA Group <&pts-host;></literal> and submit
-a bug report against the pseudo package <systemitem
+to <literal>Debian QA Group &orphan-address;</literal> and
+submit a bug report against the pseudo package <systemitem
role="package">wnpp</systemitem>. The bug report should be titled <literal>O:
<replaceable>package</replaceable> -- <replaceable>short
description</replaceable></literal> indicating that the package is now
orphaned. The severity of the bug should be set to
-<emphasis>normal</emphasis>; if the package has a priority of standard or
+<literal>normal</literal>; if the package has a priority of standard or
higher, it should be set to important. If you feel it's necessary, send a copy
-to <email>debian-devel@&lists-host;</email> by putting the address in the
+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).
</para>
role="package">wnpp</systemitem> and title it <literal>RFA:
<replaceable>package</replaceable> -- <replaceable>short
description</replaceable></literal>. <literal>RFA</literal> stands for
-<emphasis>Request For Adoption</emphasis>.
+<literal>Request For Adoption</literal>.
</para>
<para>
More information is on the <ulink url="&url-wnpp;">WNPP
mailing list. If the discussion doesn't end with a positive conclusion, and
the issue is of a technical nature, consider bringing it to the attention of
the technical committee (see the <ulink
-url="&url-devel-docs;tech-ctte">technical committee web
-page</ulink> for more information).
+url="&url-tech-ctte;">technical committee web page</ulink> for
+more information).
</para>
<para>
If you take over an old package, you probably want to be listed as the
Porting is the act of building Debian packages for architectures that are
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
-<emphasis>i386</emphasis> binary package, there must be a recompile for each
-architecture, which amounts to &number-of-arches; more builds.
+the actual compiling of Debian packages. For instance, when a maintainer
+uploads a (portable) source packages with binaries for the <literal>i386
+</literal> architecture, it will be built for each of the other architectures,
+amounting to &number-of-arches; more builds.
</para>
<section id="kind-to-porters">
<title>Being kind to porters</title>
<literal>Build-Depends-Indep</literal> settings in
<filename>debian/control</filename> are set properly. The best way to validate
this is to use the <systemitem role="package">debootstrap</systemitem> package
-to create an unstable chroot environment (see <xref linkend="debootstrap"/> ).
+to create an <literal>unstable</literal> chroot environment (see <xref
+linkend="debootstrap"/> ).
Within that chrooted environment, install the <systemitem
role="package">build-essential</systemitem> package and any package
dependencies mentioned in <literal>Build-Depends</literal> and/or
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-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 <ulink url="&url-debian-policy;">Debian Policy
-Manual</ulink>. Setting your architecture to ``i386'' is usually incorrect.
+Don't set architecture to a value other than <literal>all</literal> or
+<literal>any</literal> unless you really mean it. In too many cases,
+maintainers don't follow the instructions in the <ulink
+url="&url-debian-policy;">Debian Policy Manual</ulink>. Setting your
+architecture to only one architecture (such as <literal>i386</literal>
+or <literal>amd64</literal>) is usually incorrect.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
Make sure you don't ship your source package with the
<filename>debian/files</filename> or <filename>debian/substvars</filename>
-files. They should be removed by the `clean' target of
+files. They should be removed by the <literal>clean</literal> target of
<filename>debian/rules</filename>.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
Don't depend on the package you're building being installed already (a sub-case
-of the above issue).
+of the above issue). There are, of course, exceptions to this rule, but be
+aware that any case like this needs manual bootstrapping and cannot be done
+by automated package builders.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-Make sure your debian/rules contains separate ``binary-arch'' and
-``binary-indep'' targets, as the Debian Policy Manual requires. Make sure that
-both targets work independently, that is, that you can call the target without
-having called the other before. To test this, try to run
-<literal>dpkg-buildpackage -B</literal>.
+Make sure your debian/rules contains separate <literal>binary-arch</literal>
+and <literal>binary-indep</literal> targets, as the Debian Policy Manual
+requires. Make sure that both targets work independently, that is, that you
+can call the target without having called the other before. To test this,
+try to run <command>dpkg-buildpackage -B</command>.
</para>
</listitem>
</orderedlist>
-m<replaceable>porter-email</replaceable></literal>. Of course, set
<replaceable>porter-email</replaceable> to your email address. This will do a
binary-only build of only the architecture-dependent portions of the package,
-using the `binary-arch' target in <filename>debian/rules</filename>.
+using the <literal>binary-arch</literal> target in <filename>debian/rules
+</filename>.
</para>
<para>
If you are working on a Debian machine for your porting efforts and you need to
bad compiler, ...). Then you may just need to recompile it in an updated
environment. However, you have to bump the version number in this case, so
that the old bad package can be replaced in the Debian archive
-(<command>katie</command> refuses to install new packages if they don't have a
+(<command>dak</command> refuses to install new packages if they don't have a
version number greater than the currently available one).
</para>
<para>
You have to make sure that your binary-only NMU doesn't render the package
uninstallable. This could happen when a source package generates
-arch-dependent and arch-independent packages that depend on each other via
-$(Source-Version).
+arch-dependent and arch-independent packages that have inter-dependencies
+generated using dpkg's substitution variable <literal>$(Source-Version)
+</literal>.
</para>
<para>
Despite the required modification of the changelog, these are called
</para>
<para>
The ``magic'' for a recompilation-only NMU is triggered by using a suffix
-appended to the package version number, following the form b<number>.
+appended to the package version number, following the form <literal>
+b<replaceable>number</replaceable></literal>.
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+b1''. If the latest
-version was ``3.4+b1'' (i.e, a native package with a previous recompilation
-NMU), your NMU should have a version number of ``3.4+b2''. <footnote><para> In
-the past, such NMUs used the third-level number on the Debian part of the
-revision to denote their recompilation-only status; however, this syntax was
-ambiguous with native packages and did not allow proper ordering of
-recompile-only NMUs, source NMUs, and security NMUs on the same package, and
-has therefore been abandoned in favor of this new syntax. </para> </footnote>
+<literal>2.9-3</literal>, your binary-only NMU should carry a version of
+<literal>2.9-3+b1</literal>. If the latest version was <literal>3.4+b1
+</literal> (i.e, a native package with a previous recompilation NMU), your
+binary-only NMU should have a version number of <literal>3.4+b2</literal>.
+<footnote><para> In the past, such NMUs used the third-level number on the
+Debian part of the revision to denote their recompilation-only status;
+however, this syntax was ambiguous with native packages and did not allow
+proper ordering of recompile-only NMUs, source NMUs, and security NMUs on
+the same package, and has therefore been abandoned in favor of this new syntax.
+</para> </footnote>
</para>
<para>
Similar to initial porter uploads, the correct way of invoking
release managers decide and announce which architectures are candidates.
</para>
<para>
-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 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, none of this is Policy, just mutually agreed upon
-guidelines.) For uploads to stable or testing, please coordinate with the
-appropriate release team first.
+If you are a porter doing an NMU for <literal>unstable</literal>, 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 days for porters working
+on the <literal>unstable</literal> 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, none of this is Policy, just
+mutually agreed upon guidelines.) For uploads to <literal>stable</literal> or
+<literal>testing </literal>, please coordinate with the appropriate release
+team first.
</para>
<para>
Secondly, porters doing source NMUs should make sure that the bug they submit
-to the BTS should be of severity `serious' or greater. This ensures that a
-single source package can be used to compile every supported Debian
-architecture by release time. It is very important that we have one version of
-the binary and source package for all architecture in order to comply with many
-licenses.
+to the BTS should be of severity <literal>serious</literal> or greater. This
+ensures that a single source package can be used to compile every supported
+Debian architecture by release time. It is very important that we have one
+version of the binary and source package for all architectures in order to
+comply with many licenses.
</para>
<para>
Porters should try to avoid patches which simply kludge around bugs in the
</para>
</section>
-<section id="buildd">
-<title><systemitem role="package">buildd</systemitem></title>
+<section id="wanna-build">
+<title><systemitem role="package">wanna-build</systemitem></title>
<para>
-The <systemitem role="package">buildd</systemitem> system is used as a
+The <systemitem role="package">wanna-build</systemitem> system is used as a
distributed, client-server build distribution system. It is usually used in
-conjunction with <emphasis>auto-builders</emphasis>, which are ``slave'' hosts
-which simply check out and attempt to auto-build packages which need to be
-ported. There is also an email interface to the system, which allows porters
-to ``check out'' a source package (usually one which cannot yet be auto-built)
-and work on it.
+conjunction with build daemons running the <systemitem role="package">buildd
+</systemitem> program. <literal>Build daemons</literal> are ``slave'' hosts
+which contact the central <systemitem role="package"> wanna-build</systemitem>
+system to receive a list of packages that need to be built.
</para>
<para>
-<systemitem role="package">buildd</systemitem> is not yet available as a
-package; however, most porting efforts are either using it currently or
-planning to use it in the near future. The actual automated builder is
-packaged as <systemitem role="package">sbuild</systemitem>, see its description
-in <xref linkend="sbuild"/> . The complete <systemitem
-role="package">buildd</systemitem> system also collects a number of as yet
-unpackaged components which are currently very useful and in use continually,
-such as <command>andrea</command> and <command>wanna-build</command>.
+<systemitem role="package">wanna-build</systemitem> is not yet available as a
+package; however, all Debian porting efforts are using it for automated
+package building. The tool used to do the actual package builds, <systemitem
+role="package">sbuild</systemitem> is available as a package, see its
+description in <xref linkend="sbuild"/> . Please note that the packaged
+version is not the same as the one used on build daemons, but it is close
+enough to reproduce problems.
</para>
<para>
-Some of the data produced by <systemitem role="package">buildd</systemitem>
-which is generally useful to porters is available on the web at <ulink
-url="&url-buildd;"></ulink>. This data includes nightly updated
-information from <command>andrea</command> (source dependencies) and
-<systemitem role="package">quinn-diff</systemitem> (packages needing
-recompilation).
+Most of the data produced by <systemitem role="package">wanna-build
+</systemitem> which is generally useful to porters is available on the
+web at <ulink url="&url-buildd;"></ulink>. This data includes nightly
+updated statistics, queueing information and logs for build attempts.
</para>
<para>
We are quite proud of this system, since it has so many possible uses.
</para>
<para>
The buildds admins of each arch can be contacted at the mail address
-$arch@buildd.debian.org.
+<literal><replaceable>arch</replaceable>@buildd.debian.org</literal>.
</para>
</section>
Some packages still have issues with building and/or working on some of the
architectures supported by Debian, and cannot be ported at all, or not within a
reasonable amount of time. An example is a package that is SVGA-specific (only
-i386), or uses other hardware-specific features not supported on all
-architectures.
+available for <literal>i386</literal> and <literal>amd64</literal>), or uses
+other hardware-specific features not supported on all architectures.
</para>
<para>
In order to prevent broken packages from being uploaded to the archive, and
</para>
<para>
Additionally, if you believe the list of supported architectures is pretty
-constant, you should change 'any' to a list of supported architectures in
-debian/control. This way, the build will fail also, and indicate this to a
-human reader without actually trying.
+constant, you should change <literal>any</literal> to a list of supported
+architectures in <filename>debian/control</filename>. This way, the build will
+fail also, and indicate this to a human reader without actually trying.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
accidently upload it without noticing it doesn't work. If in the past some
binary packages were uploaded on unsupported architectures, request their
removal by filing a bug against <systemitem
-role="package">&ftp-debian-org;</systemitem>
+role="package">ftp.debian.org</systemitem>
</para>
</section>
<section id="nmu">
<title>Non-Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)</title>
<para>
-Under certain circumstances it is necessary for someone other than the official
-package maintainer to make a release of a package. This is called a
-non-maintainer upload, or NMU.
-</para>
-<para>
-This section handles only source NMUs, i.e. NMUs which upload a new version of
-the package. For binary-only NMUs by porters or QA members, please see <xref
-linkend="binary-only-nmu"/> . If a buildd builds and uploads a package, that
-too is strictly speaking a binary NMU. See <xref linkend="buildd"/> for some
-more information.
-</para>
-<para>
-The main reason why NMUs are done is when a developer needs to fix another
-developer's package in order to address serious problems or crippling bugs or
-when the package maintainer is unable to release a fix in a timely fashion.
-</para>
-<para>
-First and foremost, it is critical that NMU patches to source should be as
-non-disruptive as possible. Do not do housekeeping tasks, do not change the
-name of modules or files, do not move directories; in general, do not fix
-things which are not broken. Keep the patch as small as possible. If things
-bother you aesthetically, talk to the Debian maintainer, talk to the upstream
-maintainer, or submit a bug. However, aesthetic changes must
-<emphasis>not</emphasis> be made in a non-maintainer upload.
-</para>
-<para>
-And please remember the Hippocratic Oath: Above all, do no harm. It is better
-to leave a package with an open grave bug than applying a non-functional patch,
-or one that hides the bug instead of resolving it.
+Every package has one or more maintainers. Normally, these are the people who
+work on and upload new versions of the package. In some situations, it is
+useful that other developers can upload a new version as well, for example if
+they want to fix a bug in a package they don't maintain, when the maintainer
+needs help to respond to issues. Such uploads are called
+<emphasis>Non-Maintainer Uploads (NMU)</emphasis>.
</para>
+
<section id="nmu-guidelines">
-<title>How to do a NMU</title>
-<para>
-NMUs which fix important, serious or higher severity bugs are encouraged and
-accepted. You should endeavor to reach the current maintainer of the package;
-they might be just about to upload a fix for the problem, or have a better
-solution.
-</para>
-<para>
-NMUs should be made to assist a package's maintainer in resolving bugs.
-Maintainers should be thankful for that help, and NMUers should respect the
-decisions of maintainers, and try to personally help the maintainer by their
-work.
-</para>
+<title>When and how to do an NMU</title>
+
<para>
-A NMU should follow all conventions, written down in this section. For an
-upload to testing or unstable, this order of steps is recommended:
+Before doing an NMU, consider the following questions:
</para>
<itemizedlist>
<listitem>
<para>
-Make sure that the package's bugs that the NMU is meant to address are all
-filed in the Debian Bug Tracking System (BTS). If they are not, submit them
-immediately.
+Does your NMU really fix bugs? Fixing cosmetic issues or changing the
+packaging style in NMUs is discouraged.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-Wait a few days for the response from the maintainer. If you don't get any
-response, you may want to help them by sending the patch that fixes the bug.
-Don't forget to tag the bug with the patch keyword.
+Did you give enough time to the maintainer? When was the bug reported to the
+BTS? Being busy for a week or two isn't unusual. Is the bug so severe that it
+needs to be fixed right now, or can it wait a few more days?
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-Wait a few more days. If you still haven't got an answer from the maintainer,
-send them a mail announcing your intent to NMU the package. Prepare an NMU as
-described in this section, and test it carefully on your machine (cf. <xref
-linkend="sanitycheck"/> ). Double check that your patch doesn't have any
-unexpected side effects. Make sure your patch is as small and as
-non-disruptive as it can be.
+How confident are you about your changes? Please remember the Hippocratic Oath:
+"Above all, do no harm." It is better to leave a package with an open grave bug
+than applying a non-functional patch, or one that hides the bug instead of
+resolving it. If you are not 100% sure of what you did, it might be a good idea
+to seek advice from others. Remember that if you break something in your NMU,
+many people will be very unhappy about it.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-Upload your package to incoming in <filename>DELAYED/7-day</filename> (cf.
-<xref linkend="delayed-incoming"/> ), send the final patch to the maintainer
-via the BTS, and explain to them that they have 7 days to react if they want to
-cancel the NMU.
+Have you clearly expressed your intention to NMU, at least in the BTS?
+It is also a good idea to try to contact the
+maintainer by other means (private email, IRC).
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-Follow what happens, you're responsible for any bug that you introduced with
-your NMU. You should probably use <xref linkend="pkg-tracking-system"/> (PTS)
-to stay informed of the state of the package after your NMU.
+If the maintainer is usually active and responsive, have you tried to contact
+him? In general it should be considered preferable that a maintainer takes care
+of an issue himself and that he is given the chance to review and correct your
+patch, because he can be expected to be more aware of potential issues which an
+NMUer might miss. It is often a better use of everyone's time if the maintainer
+is given an opportunity to upload a fix on their own.
</para>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>
<para>
-At times, the release manager or an organized group of developers can announce
-a certain period of time in which the NMU rules are relaxed. This usually
-involves shortening the period during which one is to wait before uploading the
-fixes, and shortening the DELAYED period. It is important to notice that even
-in these so-called bug squashing party times, the NMU'er has to file bugs and
-contact the developer first, and act later. Please see <xref
-linkend="qa-bsp"/> for details.
+When doing an NMU, you must first make sure that your intention to NMU is
+clear. Then, you must send a patch with the differences between the
+current package and your proposed NMU to the BTS. The
+<literal>nmudiff</literal> script in the <literal>devscripts</literal> package
+might be helpful.
</para>
<para>
-For the testing distribution, the rules may be changed by the release managers.
-Please take additional care, and acknowledge that the usual way for a package
-to enter testing is through unstable.
+While preparing the patch, you should better be aware of any package-specific
+practices that the maintainer might be using. Taking them into account reduces
+the burden of getting your changes integrated back in the normal package
+workflow and thus increases the possibilities that that will happen. A good
+place where to look for for possible package-specific practices is
+<ulink url="&url-debian-policy;ch-source.html#s-readmesource"><literal>debian/README.source</literal></ulink>.
</para>
<para>
-For the stable distribution, please take extra care. Of course, the release
-managers may also change the rules here. Please verify before you upload that
-all your changes are OK for inclusion into the next stable release by the
-release manager.
+Unless you have an excellent reason not to do so, you must then give some time
+to the maintainer to react (for example, by uploading to the
+<literal>DELAYED</literal> queue). Here are some recommended values to use for delays:
</para>
+<itemizedlist>
+<listitem>
<para>
-When a security bug is detected, the security team may do an NMU, using their
-own rules. Please refer to <xref linkend="bug-security"/> for more
-information.
+Upload fixing only release-critical bugs older than 7 days: 2 days
</para>
+</listitem>
+<listitem>
<para>
-For the differences for Porters NMUs, please see <xref
-linkend="source-nmu-when-porter"/> .
+Upload fixing only release-critical and important bugs: 5 days
</para>
+</listitem>
+<listitem>
<para>
-Of course, it is always possible to agree on special rules with a maintainer
-(like the maintainer asking please upload this fix directly for me, and no diff
-required).
+Other NMUs: 10 days
</para>
-</section>
+</listitem>
+</itemizedlist>
-<section id="nmu-version">
-<title>NMU version numbering</title>
-<para>
-Whenever you have made a change to a package, no matter how trivial, the
-version number needs to change. This enables our packing system to function.
-</para>
<para>
-If you are doing a non-maintainer upload (NMU), you should add a new minor
-version number to the <replaceable>debian-revision</replaceable> part of the
-version number (the portion after the last hyphen). This extra minor number
-will start at `1'. For example, consider the package `foo', which is at
-version 1.1-3. In the archive, the source package control file would be
-<filename>foo_1.1-3.dsc</filename>. The upstream version is `1.1' and the
-Debian revision is `3'. The next NMU would add a new minor number `.1' to the
-Debian revision; the new source control file would be
-<filename>foo_1.1-3.1.dsc</filename>.
+Those delays are only examples. In some cases, such as uploads fixing security
+issues, or fixes for trivial bugs that blocking a transition, it is desirable
+that the fixed package reaches <literal>unstable</literal> sooner.
</para>
+
<para>
-The Debian revision minor number is needed to avoid stealing one of the package
-maintainer's version numbers, which might disrupt their work. It also has the
-benefit of making it visually clear that a package in the archive was not made
-by the official maintainer.
+Sometimes, release managers decide to allow NMUs with shorter delays for a
+subset of bugs (e.g release-critical bugs older than 7 days). Also, some
+maintainers list themselves in the <ulink url="&url-low-threshold-nmu;">Low
+Threshold NMU list</ulink>, and accept that NMUs are uploaded without delay. But
+even in those cases, it's still a good idea to give the maintainer a few days
+to react before you upload, especially if the patch wasn't available in the BTS
+before, or if you know that the maintainer is generally active.
</para>
+
<para>
-If there is no <replaceable>debian-revision</replaceable> component in the
-version number then one should be created, starting at `0.1' (but in case of a
-debian native package still upload it as native package). If it is absolutely
-necessary for someone other than the usual maintainer to make a release based
-on a new upstream version then the person making the release should start with
-the <replaceable>debian-revision</replaceable> value `0.1'. The usual
-maintainer of a package should start their
-<replaceable>debian-revision</replaceable> numbering at `1'.
+After you upload an NMU, you are responsible for the possible problems that you
+might have introduced. You must keep an eye on the package (subscribing to the
+package on the PTS is a good way to achieve this).
</para>
+
<para>
-If you upload a package to testing or stable, sometimes, you need to fork the
-version number tree. For this, version numbers like 1.1-3sarge0.1 could be
-used.
+This is not a license to perform NMUs thoughtlessly. If you NMU when it is
+clear that the maintainers are active and would have acknowledged a patch in a
+timely manner, or if you ignore the recommendations of this document, your
+upload might be a cause of conflict with the maintainer.
+You should always be prepared to
+defend the wisdom of any NMU you perform on its own merits.
</para>
</section>
<section id="nmu-changelog">
-<title>Source NMUs must have a new changelog entry</title>
-<para>
-Anyone who is doing a source NMU must create a changelog entry, describing
-which bugs are fixed by the NMU, and generally why the NMU was required and
-what it fixed. The changelog entry will have the email address of the person
-who uploaded it in the log entry and the NMU version number in it.
-</para>
+<title>NMUs and debian/changelog</title>
<para>
-By convention, source NMU changelog entries start with the line
+Just like any other (source) upload, NMUs must add an entry to
+<literal>debian/changelog</literal>, telling what has changed with this
+upload. The first line of this entry must explicitely mention that this upload is an NMU, e.g.:
</para>
<screen>
- * Non-maintainer upload
+ * Non-maintainer upload.
</screen>
-</section>
-<section id="nmu-patch">
-<title>Source NMUs and the Bug Tracking System</title>
<para>
-Maintainers other than the official package maintainer should make as few
-changes to the package as possible, and they should always send a patch as a
-unified context diff (<literal>diff -u</literal>) detailing their changes to
-the Bug Tracking System.
+The version must be the version of the last maintainer upload, plus
+<literal>+nmu<replaceable>X</replaceable></literal>, where
+<replaceable>X</replaceable> is a counter starting at <literal>1</literal>. If
+the last upload was also an NMU, the counter should be increased. For example,
+if the current version is <literal>1.5-1</literal>, then an NMU would get
+version <literal>1.5-1+nmu1</literal>. If the current version is
+<literal>1.5+nmu3</literal> (a native package which has already been NMUed), the
+NMU would get version <literal>1.5+nmu4</literal>. If a new upstream version
+is packaged in the NMU, the debian revision is set to <literal>0</literal>, for
+example <literal>1.6-0+nmu1</literal>.
+</para>
+
+<para>
+A special versioning scheme is needed to avoid disrupting the maintainer's
+work, since using an integer for the Debian revision will potentially
+conflict with a maintainer upload already in preparation at the time of an
+NMU, or even one sitting in the ftp NEW queue.
+It also has the
+benefit of making it visually clear that a package in the archive was not made
+by the official maintainer.
</para>
+
<para>
-What if you are simply recompiling the package? If you just need to recompile
-it for a single architecture, then you may do a binary-only NMU as described in
-<xref linkend="binary-only-nmu"/> which doesn't require any patch to be sent.
-If you want the package to be recompiled for all architectures, then you do a
-source NMU as usual and you will have to send a patch.
+If you upload a package to testing or stable, you sometimes need to "fork" the
+version number tree. This is the case for security uploads, for example. For
+this, a version of the form
+<literal>+deb<replaceable>XY</replaceable>u<replaceable>Z</replaceable></literal>
+should be used, where <replaceable>X</replaceable> and
+<replaceable>Y</replaceable> are the major and minor release numbers, and
+<replaceable>Z</replaceable> is a counter starting at <literal>1</literal>.
+When the release number is not yet known (often the case for
+<literal>testing</literal>, at the beginning of release cycles), the lowest
+release number higher than the last stable release number must be used. For
+example, while Etch (Debian 4.0) is stable, a security NMU to stable for a
+package at version <literal>1.5-3</literal> would have version
+<literal>1.5-3+deb40u1</literal>, whereas a security NMU to Lenny would get
+version <literal>1.5-3+deb50u1</literal>. After the release of Lenny, security
+uploads to the <literal>testing</literal> distribution will be versioned
+<literal>+deb51uZ</literal>, until it is known whether that release will be
+Debian 5.1 or Debian 6.0 (if that becomes the case, uploads will be versioned
+as <literal>+deb60uZ</literal>.
</para>
+</section>
+
+<section id="nmu-delayed">
+<title>Using the <literal>DELAYED/</literal> queue</title>
+
<para>
-Bugs fixed by source NMUs used to be tagged fixed instead of closed, but since
-version tracking is in place, such bugs are now also closed with the NMU
-version.
+Having to wait for a response after you request permission to NMU is
+inefficient, because it costs the NMUer a context switch to come back to the
+issue.
+The <literal>DELAYED</literal> queue (see <xref linkend="delayed-incoming"/>)
+allows the developer doing the NMU to perform all the necessary tasks at the
+same time. For instance, instead of telling the maintainer that you will
+upload the updated
+package in 7 days, you should upload the package to
+<literal>DELAYED/7</literal> and tell the maintainer that he has 7 days to
+react. During this time, the maintainer can ask you to delay the upload some
+more, or cancel your upload.
</para>
+
<para>
-Also, after doing an NMU, you have to send the information to the existing bugs
-that are fixed by your NMU, including the unified diff. Historically, it was
-custom to open a new bug and include a patch showing all the changes you have
-made. The normal maintainer will either apply the patch or employ an alternate
-method of fixing the problem. Sometimes bugs are fixed independently upstream,
-which is another good reason to back out an NMU's patch. If the maintainer
-decides not to apply the NMU's patch but to release a new version, the
-maintainer needs to ensure that the new upstream version really fixes each
-problem that was fixed in the non-maintainer release.
+The <literal>DELAYED</literal> queue should not be used to put additional
+pressure on the maintainer. In particular, it's important that you are
+available to cancel or delay the upload before the delay expires since the
+maintainer cannot cancel the upload himself.
</para>
+
<para>
-In addition, the normal maintainer should <emphasis>always</emphasis> retain
-the entry in the changelog file documenting the non-maintainer upload -- and of
-course, also keep the changes. If you revert some of the changes, please
-reopen the relevant bug reports.
+If you make an NMU to <literal>DELAYED</literal> and the maintainer updates
+his package before the delay expires, your upload will be rejected because a
+newer version is already available in the archive.
+Ideally, the maintainer will take care to include your proposed changes (or
+at least a solution for the problems they address) in that upload.
</para>
+
</section>
-<section id="nmu-build">
-<title>Building source NMUs</title>
+<section id="nmu-maintainer">
+<title>NMUs from the maintainer's point of view</title>
+
<para>
-Source NMU packages are built normally. Pick a distribution using the same
-rules as found in <xref linkend="distribution"/> , follow the other
-instructions in <xref linkend="upload"/> .
+When someone NMUs your package, this means they want to help you to keep it in
+good shape. This gives users fixed packages faster. You
+can consider asking the NMUer to become a co-maintainer of the package.
+Receiving an NMU on a package is not a bad
+thing; it just means that the package is interesting enough for other people to
+work on it.
</para>
+
<para>
-Make sure you do <emphasis>not</emphasis> change the value of the maintainer in
-the <filename>debian/control</filename> file. Your name as given in the NMU
-entry of the <filename>debian/changelog</filename> file will be used for
-signing the changes file.
+To acknowledge an NMU, include its changes and changelog entry in your next
+maintainer upload. If you do not acknowledge the NMU by including the
+NMU changelog entry in your changelog, the bugs will remain closed in the
+BTS but will be listed as affecting your maintainer version of the package.
</para>
+
</section>
-<section id="ack-nmu">
-<title>Acknowledging an NMU</title>
+<section id="nmu-binnmu">
+<title>Source NMUs vs Binary-only NMUs (binNMUs)</title>
+
<para>
-If one of your packages has been NMU'ed, you have to incorporate the changes in
-your copy of the sources. This is easy, you just have to apply the patch that
-has been sent to you. Once this is done, you have to close the bugs that have
-been tagged fixed by the NMU. The easiest way is to use the
-<literal>-v</literal> option of <command>dpkg-buildpackage</command>, as this
-allows you to include just all changes since your last maintainer upload.
-Alternatively, you can close them manually by sending the required mails to the
-BTS or by adding the required <literal>closes: #nnnn</literal> in the changelog
-entry of your next upload.
+The full name of an NMU is <emphasis>source NMU</emphasis>. There is also
+another type, namely the <emphasis>binary-only NMU</emphasis>, or
+<emphasis>binNMU</emphasis>. A binNMU is also a package upload by someone
+other than the package's maintainer. However, it is a binary-only upload.
</para>
+
<para>
-In any case, you should not be upset by the NMU. An NMU is not a personal
-attack against the maintainer. It is a proof that someone cares enough about
-the package that they were willing to help you in your work, so you should be
-thankful. You may also want to ask them if they would be interested in helping
-you on a more frequent basis as co-maintainer or backup maintainer (see <xref
-linkend="collaborative-maint"/> ).
+When a library (or other dependency) is updated, the packages using it may need
+to be rebuilt. Since no changes to the source are needed, the same source
+package is used.
</para>
-</section>
-<section id="nmu-vs-qa">
-<title>NMU vs QA uploads</title>
<para>
-Unless you know the maintainer is still active, it is wise to check the package
-to see if it has been orphaned. The current list of orphaned packages which
-haven't had their maintainer set correctly is available at <ulink
-url="&url-debian-qa-orphaned;"></ulink>. If you perform an NMU on an
-improperly orphaned package, please set the maintainer to ``Debian QA Group
-<&pts-host;>''.
+BinNMUs are usually triggered on the buildds by wanna-build.
+An entry is added to debian/changelog,
+explaining why the upload was needed and increasing the version number as
+described in <xref linkend="binary-only-nmu"/>.
+This entry should not be included in the next upload.
</para>
-</section>
-<section id="nmu-who">
-<title>Who can do an NMU</title>
<para>
-Only official, registered Debian Developers can do binary or source NMUs. A
-Debian Developer is someone who has their key in the Debian key ring.
-Non-developers, however, are encouraged to download the source package and
-start hacking on it to fix problems; however, rather than doing an NMU, they
-should just submit worthwhile patches to the Bug Tracking System. Maintainers
-almost always appreciate quality patches and bug reports.
+Buildds upload packages for their architecture to the archive as binary-only
+uploads. Strictly speaking, these are binNMUs. However, they are not normally
+called NMU, and they don't add an entry to debian/changelog.
</para>
+
</section>
-<section id="nmu-terms">
-<title>Terminology</title>
+<section id="nmu-qa-upload">
+<title>NMUs vs QA uploads</title>
+
<para>
-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-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
-<emphasis>non-maintainer</emphasis> upload.
+NMUs are uploads of packages by somebody else than their assigned maintainer.
+There is
+another type of upload where the uploaded package is not yours: QA uploads. QA
+uploads are uploads of orphaned packages.
</para>
+
<para>
-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
-<filename>debian/changelog</filename>). 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.
+QA uploads are very much like normal maintainer uploads: they may fix anything,
+even minor issues; the version numbering is normal, and there is no need to use
+a delayed upload. The difference is that you are not listed as the Maintainer
+or Uploader for the package. Also, the changelog entry of a QA upload has a
+special first line:
</para>
+
+<screen>
+ * QA upload.
+</screen>
+
<para>
-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.
+If you want to do an NMU, and it seems that the maintainer is not active, it is
+wise to check if the package is orphaned
+(this information is displayed on the package's Package Tracking System page).
+When doing the first QA upload to an
+orphaned package, the maintainer should be set to <literal>Debian QA Group
+<packages@qa.debian.org></literal>. Orphaned packages which did
+not yet have a QA upload still have their old maintainer set. There is a list
+of them at <ulink url="&url-orphaned-not-qa;"/>.
</para>
+
<para>
-Both classes of NMUs, source and binary-only, can be lumped under 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: always use
-``binary NMU'' or ``binNMU'' for binary-only NMUs.
+Instead of doing a QA upload, you can also consider adopting the package by
+making yourself the maintainer. You don't need permission from anybody to
+adopt an orphaned package, you can just set yourself as maintainer and upload
+the new version (see <xref linkend="adopting"/>).
</para>
+
</section>
</section>
Generally there is a primary maintainer and one or more co-maintainers. The
primary maintainer is the person whose name is listed in the
<literal>Maintainer</literal> field of the <filename>debian/control</filename>
-file. Co-maintainers are all the other maintainers.
+file. Co-maintainers are all the other maintainers,
+usually listed in the <literal>Uploaders</literal> field of the
+<filename>debian/control</filename> file.
</para>
<para>
In its most basic form, the process of adding a new co-maintainer is quite
<listitem>
<para>
Add the co-maintainer's correct maintainer name and address to the
-<literal>Uploaders</literal> field in the global part of the
+<literal>Uploaders</literal> field in the first paragraph of the
<filename>debian/control</filename> file.
</para>
<screen>
<section id="testing-basics">
<title>Basics</title>
<para>
-Packages are usually installed into the `testing' distribution after they have
-undergone some degree of testing in unstable.
+Packages are usually installed into the <literal>testing</literal> distribution
+after they have undergone some degree of <literal>testing</literal> in
+<literal>unstable</literal>.
</para>
<para>
They must be in sync on all architectures and mustn't have dependencies that
make them uninstallable; they also have to have generally no known
-release-critical bugs at the time they're installed into testing. This way,
-`testing' should always be close to being a release candidate. Please see
-below for details.
+release-critical bugs at the time they're installed into <literal>testing
+</literal>. This way, <literal>testing</literal> should always be close to
+being a release candidate. Please see below for details.
</para>
</section>
<section id="testing-unstable">
<title>Updates from unstable</title>
<para>
-The scripts that update the <emphasis>testing</emphasis> distribution are run
-each day after the installation of the updated packages; these scripts are
-called <emphasis>britney</emphasis>. They generate the
-<filename>Packages</filename> files for the <emphasis>testing</emphasis>
+The scripts that update the <literal>testing</literal> distribution are run
+twice each day, right after the installation of the updated packages; these
+scripts are called <literal>britney</literal>. They generate the
+<filename>Packages</filename> files for the <literal>testing</literal>
distribution, but they do so in an intelligent manner; they try to avoid any
inconsistency and to use only non-buggy packages.
</para>
<para>
-The inclusion of a package from <emphasis>unstable</emphasis> is conditional on
+The inclusion of a package from <literal>unstable</literal> is conditional on
the following:
</para>
<itemizedlist>
<listitem>
<para>
-The package must have been available in <emphasis>unstable</emphasis> for 2, 5
+The package must have been available in <literal>unstable</literal> for 2, 5
or 10 days, depending on the urgency (high, medium or low). Please note that
the urgency is sticky, meaning that the highest urgency uploaded since the
-previous testing transition is taken into account. Those delays may be doubled
-during a freeze, or testing transitions may be switched off altogether;
+previous <literal>testing</literal> transition is taken into account. Those
+delays may be doubled during a freeze, or <literal>testing</literal>
+transitions may be switched off altogether;
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-It must have the same number or fewer release-critical bugs than the version
-currently available in <emphasis>testing</emphasis>;
+It must not have new release-critical bugs (RC bugs affecting the version
+available in <literal>unstable</literal>, but not affecting the version in
+<literal>testing</literal>);
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
It must be available on all architectures on which it has previously been built
-in unstable. <xref linkend="madison"/> may be of interest to check that
-information;
+in <literal>unstable</literal>. <xref linkend="dak-ls"/> may be of interest
+to check that information;
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
It must not break any dependency of a package which is already available in
-<emphasis>testing</emphasis>;
+<literal>testing</literal>;
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
The packages on which it depends must either be available in
-<emphasis>testing</emphasis> or they must be accepted into
-<emphasis>testing</emphasis> at the same time (and they will be if they fulfill
+<literal>testing</literal> or they must be accepted into
+<literal>testing</literal> at the same time (and they will be if they fulfill
all the necessary criteria);
</para>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>
<para>
-To find out whether a package is progressing into testing or not, see the
-
testing script output on the <ulink
-url="&url-devel-docs;testing">web page of the testing
+To find out whether a package is progressing into <literal>testing</literal>
+
or not, see the <literal>testing</literal> script output on the <ulink
+url="&url-testing-maint;">web page of the testing
distribution</ulink>, or use the program <command>grep-excuses</command> which
is in the <systemitem role="package">devscripts</systemitem> package. This
utility can easily be used in a <citerefentry>
<refentrytitle>crontab</refentrytitle> <manvolnum>5</manvolnum> </citerefentry>
to keep yourself informed of the progression of your packages into
-<emphasis>testing</emphasis>.
+<literal>testing</literal>.
</para>
<para>
The <filename>update_excuses</filename> file does not always give the precise
reason why the package is refused; you may have to find it on your own by
looking for what would break with the inclusion of the package. The <ulink
-url="&url-devel-docs;testing">testing web page</ulink> gives some
+url="&url-testing-maint;">testing web page</ulink> gives some
more information about the usual problems which may be causing such troubles.
</para>
<para>
-Sometimes, some packages never enter <emphasis>testing</emphasis> because the
+Sometimes, some packages never enter <literal>testing</literal> because the
set of inter-relationship is too complicated and cannot be sorted out by the
scripts. See below for details.
</para>
<para>
Some further dependency analysis is shown on <ulink
-url="http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/"></ulink> — but be warned, this page also
+url="http://release.debian.org/migration/"></ulink> — but be warned, this page also
shows build dependencies which are not considered by britney.
</para>
<section id="outdated">
<title>out-of-date</title>
<para>
<!-- FIXME: better rename this file than document rampant professionalism? -->
-For the testing migration script, outdated means: There are different versions
-in unstable for the release architectures (except for the architectures in
-fuckedarches; fuckedarches is a list of architectures that don't keep up (in
-update_out.py), but currently, it's empty). outdated has nothing whatsoever to
-do with the architectures this package has in testing.
+For the <literal>testing</literal> migration script, outdated means: There are
+different versions in <literal>unstable</literal> for the release architectures
+(except for the architectures in fuckedarches; fuckedarches is a list of
+architectures that don't keep up (in <filename>update_out.py</filename>), but
+currently, it's empty). outdated has nothing whatsoever to do with the
+architectures this package has in <literal>testing</literal>.
</para>
<para>
Consider this example:
</tgroup>
</informaltable>
<para>
-The package is out of date on alpha in unstable, and will not go to testing.
-And removing foo from testing would not help at all, the package is still out
-of date on alpha, and will not propagate to testing.
+The package is out of date on alpha in <literal>unstable</literal>, and will
+not go to <literal>testing</literal>. Removing the package would not help at all, the
+package is still out of date on <literal>alpha</literal>, and will not
+propagate to testing.
</para>
<para>
-However, if ftp-master removes a package in unstable (here on arm):
+However, if ftp-master removes a package in <literal>unstable</literal> (here
+on <literal>arm</literal>):
</para>
<informaltable pgwide="1">
<tgroup cols="4">
</informaltable>
<para>
In this case, the package is up to date on all release architectures in
-unstable (and the extra hurd-i386 doesn't matter, as it's not a release
-architecture).
+<literal>unstable</literal> (and the extra <literal>hurd-i386</literal>
+doesn't matter, as it's not a release architecture).
</para>
<para>
Sometimes, the question is raised if it is possible to allow packages in that
<para>
Sometimes, a package is removed to allow another package in: This happens only
to allow <emphasis>another</emphasis> package to go in if it's ready in every
-other sense. Suppose e.g. that <emphasis>a</emphasis> cannot be installed
-with the new version of <emphasis>b</emphasis>; then <emphasis>a</emphasis> may
-be removed to allow <emphasis>b</emphasis> in.
+other sense. Suppose e.g. that <literal>a</literal> cannot be installed
+with the new version of <literal>b</literal>; then <literal>a</literal> may
+be removed to allow <literal>b</literal> in.
</para>
<para>
-Of course, there is another reason to remove a package from testing: It's just
-too buggy (and having a single RC-bug is enough to be in this state).
+Of course, there is another reason to remove a package from <literal>testing
+</literal>: It's just too buggy (and having a single RC-bug is enough to be
+in this state).
</para>
<para>
-Furthermore, if a package has been removed from unstable, and no package in
-testing depends on it any more, then it will automatically be removed.
+Furthermore, if a package has been removed from <literal>unstable</literal>,
+and no package in <literal>testing</literal> depends on it any more, then it
+will automatically be removed.
</para>
</section>
<title>circular dependencies</title>
<para>
A situation which is not handled very well by britney is if package
-<emphasis>a</emphasis> depends on the new version of package
-<emphasis>b</emphasis>, and vice versa.
+<literal>a</literal> depends on the new version of package
+<literal>b</literal>, and vice versa.
</para>
<para>
An example of this is:
</tgroup>
</informaltable>
<para>
-Neither package <emphasis>a</emphasis> nor package <emphasis>b</emphasis> is
+Neither package <literal>a</literal> nor package <literal>b</literal> is
considered for update.
</para>
<para>
Currently, this requires some manual hinting from the release team. Please
-contact them by sending mail to <email>debian-release@&lists-host;</email>
-if this happens to one of your packages.
+contact them by sending mail to &email-debian-release; if this
+happens to one of your packages.
</para>
</section>
<section id="s5.13.2.4">
<title>influence of package in testing</title>
<para>
-Generally, there is nothing that the status of a package in testing means for
-transition of the next version from unstable to testing, with two exceptions:
+Generally, there is nothing that the status of a package in <literal>testing
+</literal> means for transition of the next version from <literal>unstable
+</literal> to <literal>testing</literal>, with two exceptions:
If the RC-bugginess of the package goes down, it may go in even if it is still
-RC-buggy. The second exception is if the version of the package in testing is
-out of sync on the different arches: Then any arch might just upgrade to the
-version of the source package; however, this can happen only if the package was
-previously forced through, the arch is in fuckedarches, or there was no binary
-package of that arch present in unstable at all during the testing migration.
+RC-buggy. The second exception is if the version of the package in <literal>
+testing</literal> is out of sync on the different arches: Then any arch might
+just upgrade to the version of the source package; however, this can happen
+only if the package was previously forced through, the arch is in fuckedarches,
+or there was no binary package of that arch present in <literal>unstable
+</literal> at all during the <literal>testing</literal> migration.
</para>
<para>
-In summary this means: The only influence that a package being in testing has
-on a new version of the same package is that the new version might go in
-easier.
+In summary this means: The only influence that a package being in <literal>
+testing</literal> has on a new version of the same package is that the new
+version might go in easier.
</para>
</section>
is not described here. If you're interested in that, please peruse the code.)
</para>
<para>
-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 testing is not more
-uninstallable after the update than 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.)
+Now, the more complex part happens: Britney tries to update <literal>testing
+</literal> with the valid candidates. For that, britney tries to add each
+valid candidate to the testing distribution. If the number of uninstallable
+packages in <literal>testing</literal> doesn't increase, the package is
+accepted. From that point on, the accepted package is considered to be part
+of <literal>testing</literal>, such that all subsequent installability
+tests include this package. Hints from the release team are processed
+before or after this main run, depending on the exact type.
</para>
<para>
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 <ulink
+<filename>merkel:/org/&ftp-debian-org;/testing/update_out/</filename> (or
+in <filename>merkel:~aba/testing/update_out</filename> to see a setup with
+
a smaller packages file). Via web, it's at <ulink
url="http://&ftp-master-host;/testing/update_out_code/"></ulink>
</para>
<para>
<section id="t-p-u">
<title>Direct updates to testing</title>
<para>
-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
-<emphasis>testing-proposed-updates</emphasis>.
+The <literal>testing</literal> distribution is fed with packages from
+<literal>unstable</literal> according to the rules explained above. However,
+in some cases, it is necessary to upload packages built only for <literal>
+testing</literal>. For that, you may want to upload to <literal>
+testing-proposed-updates</literal>.
</para>
<para>
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 managers' eyes, you should read the instructions that they regularly
-give on <email>debian-devel-announce@&lists-host;</email>.
+give on &email-debian-devel-announce;.
</para>
<para>
-You should not upload to <emphasis>testing-proposed-updates</emphasis> when you
-can update your packages through <emphasis>unstable</emphasis>. If you can't
-(for example because you have a newer development version in unstable), you may
-use this facility, but it is recommended that you ask for authorization from
-the release manager first. Even if a package is frozen, updates through
-unstable are possible, if the upload via unstable does not pull in any new
-dependencies.
+You should not upload to <literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal> when you
+can update your packages through <literal>unstable</literal>. If you can't
+(for example because you have a newer development version in <literal>unstable
+</literal>), you may use this facility, but it is recommended that you ask for
+authorization from the release manager first. Even if a package is frozen,
+updates through <literal>unstable</literal> are possible, if the upload via
+<literal>unstable</literal> does not pull in any new dependencies.
</para>
<para>
-Version numbers are usually selected by adding the codename of the testing
-distribution and a running number, like 1.2sarge1 for the first upload through
-testing-proposed-updates of package version 1.2.
+Version numbers are usually selected by adding the codename of the
+<literal>testing</literal> distribution and a running number, like
+<literal>1.2sarge1</literal> for the first upload through
+<literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal> of package version
+<literal>1.2</literal>.
</para>
<para>
Please make sure you didn't miss any of these items in your upload:
<listitem>
<para>
Make sure that your package really needs to go through
-<emphasis>testing-proposed-updates</emphasis>, and can't go through unstable;
+<literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal>, and can't go through <literal>
+unstable</literal>;
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-Make sure that you've written <emphasis>testing</emphasis> or
-<emphasis>testing-proposed-updates</emphasis> into your target distribution;
+Make sure that you've written <literal>testing</literal> or
+<literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal> into your target distribution;
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
Make sure that you've built and tested your package in
-<emphasis>testing</emphasis>, not in <emphasis>unstable</emphasis>;
+<literal>testing</literal>, not in <literal>unstable</literal>;
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
Make sure that your version number is higher than the version in
-<emphasis>testing</emphasis> and <emphasis>testing-proposed-updates</emphasis>,
-and lower than in <emphasis>unstable</emphasis>;
+<literal>testing</literal> and <literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal>,
+and lower than in <literal>unstable</literal>;
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
After uploading and successful build on all platforms, contact the release team
-at <email>debian-release@&lists-host;</email> and ask them to approve your
-upload.
+at &email-debian-release; and ask them to approve your upload.
</para>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>
<title>What are release-critical bugs, and how do they get counted?</title>
<para>
All bugs of some higher severities are by default considered release-critical;
-currently, these are critical, grave, and serious bugs.
+currently, these are <literal>critical</literal>, <literal>grave</literal> and
+<literal>serious</literal> bugs.
</para>
<para>
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.
-</para>
-<para>
-The unstable bug count are all release-critical bugs without either any
-release-tag (such as potato, woody) or with release-tag sid; also, only if they
-are neither fixed nor set to sarge-ignore. The testing bug count for a package
-is considered to be roughly the bug count of unstable count at the last point
-when the testing version equalled the unstable version.
+be released with the <literal>stable</literal> release of Debian: in general,
+if a package has open release-critical bugs filed on it, it won't get into
+<literal>testing</literal>, and consequently won't be released in <literal>
+stable</literal>.
</para>
<para>
-This will change post-sarge, as soon as we have versions in the bug tracking
-system.
+The <literal>unstable</literal> bug count are all release-critical bugs which
+are marked to apply to <replaceable>package</replaceable>/<replaceable>version
+</replaceable> combinations that are available in unstable for a release
+architecture. The <literal>testing</literal> bug count is defined analogously.
</para>
</section>
<section id="s5.13.4.2">
-<title>How could installing a package into testing possibly break other packages?</title>
+<title>How could installing a package into <literal>testing</literal> possibly
+break other packages?</title>
<para>
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.
+package <literal>acmefoo</literal> is installed into <literal>testing</literal>,
+along with its binary packages <literal>acme-foo-bin</literal>, <literal>
+acme-bar-bin</literal>, <literal>libacme-foo1</literal> and <literal>
+libacme-foo-dev</literal>, the old version is removed.
</para>
<para>
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.
+of a library, such as <literal>libacme-foo0</literal>. Removing the old
+<literal>acmefoo</literal> will remove <literal>libacme-foo0</literal>, which
+will break any packages which depend on it.
</para>
<para>
Evidently, this mainly affects packages which provide changing sets of binary
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,
+package into <literal>testing</literal> breaks all the packages that depended on
+it in <literal>testing</literal>,
some care has to be taken now: 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
</para>
<para>
If you are having problems with complicated groups of packages like this,
-contact debian-devel or debian-release for help.
+contact &email-debian-devel; or &email-debian-release; for help.
</para>
</section>
~ianmdlvl / developers-reference.git / blobdiff