</para>
<para>
Assuming no one else is already working on your prospective package, you must
-then submit a bug report (<xref linkend="submit-bug"/> ) against the
+then submit a bug report (<xref linkend="submit-bug"/>) against the
pseudo-package <systemitem role="package">wnpp</systemitem> describing your
plan to create a new package, including, but not limiting yourself to, a
description of the package, the license of the prospective package, and the
current URL where it can be downloaded from.
</para>
<para>
-You should set the subject of the bug to <literal>ITP:
+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>.
+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.
+that notifying the mailing list in separate messages is too disruptive,
+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:
-bug#<replaceable>nnnnn</replaceable></literal> entry in the changelog of the
-new package in order for the bug report to be automatically closed once the new
-package is installed in the archive (see <xref linkend="upload-bugfix"/> ).
+Please include a <literal>Closes: #<replaceable>nnnnn</replaceable></literal>
+entry in the changelog of the new package in order for the bug report to
+be automatically closed once the new package is installed in the archive
+(see <xref linkend="upload-bugfix"/>).
</para>
<para>
-When closing security bugs include CVE numbers as well as the Closes: #nnnnn.
+If you think your package needs some explanations for the administrators of the
+NEW package queue, include them in your changelog, send to &email-ftpmaster;
+a reply to the email you receive as a maintainer after your upload, or reply to
+the rejection email in case you are already re-uploading.
+</para>
+<para>
+When closing security bugs include CVE numbers as well as the
+<literal>Closes: #<replaceable>nnnnn</replaceable></literal>.
This is useful for the security team to track vulnerabilities. If an upload is
made to fix the bug before the advisory ID is known, it is encouraged to modify
the historical changelog entry with the next upload. Even in this case, please
The <filename>debian/changelog</filename> file conforms to a certain structure,
with a number of different fields. One field of note, the
<literal>distribution</literal>, is described in <xref
-linkend="distribution"/> . More information about the structure of this file
+linkend="distribution"/>. More information about the structure of this file
can be found in the Debian Policy section titled
<filename>debian/changelog</filename>.
</para>
<para>
Changelog entries can be used to automatically close Debian bugs when the
-package is installed into the archive. See <xref linkend="upload-bugfix"/> .
+package is installed into the archive. See <xref linkend="upload-bugfix"/>.
</para>
<para>
It is conventional that the changelog entry of a package that contains a new
upstream version of the software looks like this:
</para>
<screen>
- * new upstream version
+ * New upstream release.
</screen>
<para>
There are tools to help you create entries and finalize the
<filename>changelog</filename> for release — see <xref linkend="devscripts"/>
-and <xref linkend="dpkg-dev-el"/> .
+and <xref linkend="dpkg-dev-el"/>.
</para>
<para>
-See also <xref linkend="bpp-debian-changelog"/> .
+See also <xref linkend="bpp-debian-changelog"/>.
</para>
</section>
</para>
<para>
Normally, a package should <emphasis>not</emphasis> be uploaded if it causes
-lintian to emit errors (they will start with <literal>E</literal>).
+<command>lintian</command> to emit errors (they will start with <literal>E</literal>).
</para>
<para>
For more information on <command>lintian</command>, see <xref
-linkend="lintian"/> .
+linkend="lintian"/>.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-Optionally run <xref linkend="debdiff"/> to analyze changes from an older
+Optionally run <command>debdiff</command> (see <xref linkend="debdiff"/>) to analyze changes from an older
version, if one exists.
</para>
</listitem>
Copy the source package in a different directory and try unpacking it and
rebuilding it. This tests if the package relies on existing files outside of
it, or if it relies on permissions being preserved on the files shipped inside
-the .diff.gz file.
+the <filename>.diff.gz</filename> file.
</para>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>
<listitem>
<para>
the (more common) packages where there's an original source tarball file
-accompanied by another file that contains the patches applied for Debian
+accompanied by another file that contains the changes made by Debian
</para>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>
<para>
For the native packages, the source package includes a Debian source control
-file (<literal>.dsc</literal>) and the source tarball
-(<literal>.tar.gz</literal>). A source package of a non-native package
+file (<filename>.dsc</filename>) and the source tarball
+(<filename>.tar.{gz,bz2,xz}</filename>). A source package of a non-native package
includes a Debian source control file, the original source tarball
-(<literal>.orig.tar.gz</literal>) and the Debian patches
-(<literal>.diff.gz</literal>).
+(<filename>.orig.tar.{gz,bz2,xz}</filename>) and the Debian changes
+(<filename>.diff.gz</filename> for the source format “1.0” or
+<filename>.debian.tar.{gz,bz2,xz}</filename> for the source format “3.0 (quilt)”).
</para>
<para>
-Whether a package is native or not is determined when it is built by
-<citerefentry> <refentrytitle>dpkg-buildpackage</refentrytitle>
-<manvolnum>1</manvolnum> </citerefentry>. The rest of this section relates
-only to non-native packages.
+With source format “1.0”, whether a package is native or not was determined
+by <command>dpkg-source</command> at build time. Nowadays it is recommended
+to be explicit about the desired source format by putting either “3.0 (quilt)”
+or “3.0 (native)” in <filename>debian/source/format</filename>.
+The rest of this section relates only to non-native packages.
</para>
<para>
The first time a version is uploaded which corresponds to a particular upstream
<para>
By default, <command>dpkg-genchanges</command> and
<command>dpkg-buildpackage</command> will include the original source tar file
-if and only if the Debian revision part of the source version number is 0 or 1,
-indicating a new upstream version. This behavior may be modified by using
+if and only if the current changelog entry has a different upstream version
+from the preceding entry. This behavior may be modified by using
<literal>-sa</literal> to always include it or <literal>-sd</literal> to always
leave it out.
</para>
</para>
<para>
Please notice that, in non-native packages, permissions on files that are not
-present in the .orig.tar.gz will not be preserved, as diff does not store file
-permissions in the patch.
+present in the <filename>*.orig.tar.{gz,bz2,xz}</filename> will not be preserved, as diff does not store file
+permissions in the patch. However when using source format “3.0 (quilt)”,
+permissions of files inside the <filename>debian</filename> directory are
+preserved since they are stored in a tar archive.
</para>
</section>
Each upload needs to specify which distribution the package is intended for.
The package build process extracts this information from the first line of the
<filename>debian/changelog</filename> file and places it in the
-<literal>Distribution</literal> field of the <literal>.changes</literal> file.
+<literal>Distribution</literal> field of the <filename>.changes</filename> file.
</para>
<para>
There are several possible values for this field: <literal>stable</literal>,
<literal>unstable</literal>.
</para>
<para>
-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.
+Actually, there are other possible distributions:
+<replaceable>codename</replaceable><literal>-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 <literal>stable</literal> and
+<title>Special case: uploads to the <literal>stable</literal> and
<literal>oldstable</literal> distributions</title>
<para>
-Uploading to <literal>stable</literal> means that the package will transfered
+Uploading to <literal>stable</literal> means that the package will transferred
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.
</para>
<para>
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
+with the stable release team before you upload. For that, file a bug against
+the <systemitem role="package">release.debian.org</systemitem> pseudo-package
+using <command>reportbug</command>, 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.
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
+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
+<literal>Provides</literal> or <filename>shlibs</filename> files), possibly
making those other packages uninstallable, is strongly discouraged.
</para>
<para>
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.
+long as it hasn't been archived. The same rules as for <literal>stable</literal>
+apply.
</para>
</section>
<title>Uploading to <literal>ftp-master</literal></title>
<para>
To upload a package, you should upload the files (including the signed changes
-and dsc-file) with anonymous ftp to <literal>&ftp-master-host;</literal> in
+and dsc-file) with anonymous ftp to <literal>&ftp-upload-host;</literal> in
the directory <ulink
-url="ftp://&ftp-master-host;&upload-queue;">&upload-queue;</ulink>.
+url="ftp://&ftp-upload-host;&upload-queue;">&upload-queue;</ulink>.
To get the files processed there, they need to be signed with a key in the
Debian Developers keyring or the Debian Maintainers keyring
(see <ulink url="&url-wiki-dm;"></ulink>).
changes file and see that not all files have been uploaded.
</para>
<para>
-You may also find the Debian packages <xref linkend="dupload"/> or <xref
-linkend="dput"/> useful when uploading packages. These handy programs help
-automate the process of uploading packages into Debian.
+You may also find the Debian packages <link linkend="dupload">dupload</link>
+or <link linkend="dput">dput</link> useful when uploading packages.These
+handy programs help automate the process of uploading packages into Debian.
</para>
<para>
-For removing packages, please see the README file in that ftp directory, and
-the Debian package <xref linkend="dcut"/> .
+For removing packages, please see
+<ulink url="ftp://&ftp-upload-host;&upload-queue;README"/> and
+the Debian package <link linkend="dcut">dcut</link>.
</para>
</section>
<section id="delayed-incoming">
<title>Delayed uploads</title>
+
<para>
-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
+It is sometimes useful to upload a package immediately, but to want this
+package to arrive in the archive only a few days later. For example,
+when preparing a <link linkend="nmu">Non-Maintainer Upload</link>,
+you might want to give the maintainer a few days to react.
</para>
-<screen>
-[tfheen_delayed]
-method = scp
-fqdn = gluck.debian.org
-incoming = ~tfheen
-</screen>
+
<para>
-in <filename>~/.dput.cf</filename> should work fine for uploading to the
-<literal>DELAYED</literal> queue.
+An upload to the delayed directory keeps the package in
+<ulink url="http://ftp-master.debian.org/deferred.html">the deferred uploads queue</ulink>.
+When the specified waiting time is over, the package is moved into
+the regular incoming directory for processing.
+This is done through automatic uploading to
+<literal>&ftp-upload-host;</literal> in upload-directory
+<literal>DELAYED/<replaceable>X</replaceable>-day</literal>
+(<replaceable>X</replaceable> between 0 and 15). 0-day is uploaded
+multiple times per day to <literal>&ftp-upload-host;</literal>.
</para>
<para>
-<emphasis>Note:</emphasis> Since this upload queue goes to
-<literal>&ftp-master-host;</literal>, the prescription found in <xref
-linkend="upload-ftp-master"/> applies here as well.
+With dput, you can use the <literal>--delayed <replaceable>DELAY</replaceable></literal>
+parameter to put the package into one of the queues.
</para>
</section>
<title>Security uploads</title>
<para>
Do <emphasis role="strong">NOT</emphasis> upload a package to the security
-upload queue (<literal>oldstable-security</literal>, <literal>stable-security
-</literal>, etc.) without prior authorization from the security team. If the
+upload queue (on <literal>security-master.debian.org</literal>)
+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"/> .
+see <xref linkend="bug-security"/>.
</para>
</section>
<section id="s5.6.5">
<title>Other upload queues</title>
<para>
-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
-down. Work is underway to resurrect them.
+There is an alternative upload queue in Europe at <ulink
+url="ftp://&ftp-eu-upload-host;&upload-queue;"/>. It operates in
+the same way as <literal>&ftp-upload-host;</literal>, but should be faster
+for European developers.
</para>
<para>
-The queues on master.debian.org, samosa.debian.org, master.debian.or.jp, and
-ftp.chiark.greenend.org.uk are down permanently, and will not be resurrected.
-The queue in Japan will be replaced with a new queue on hp.debian.or.jp some
-day.
+Packages can also be uploaded via ssh to
+<literal>&ssh-upload-host;</literal>; files should be put
+<literal>/srv/upload.debian.org/UploadQueue</literal>. This queue does
+not support <link linkend="delayed-incoming">delayed uploads</link>.
</para>
</section>
<para>
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 <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
+archive maintenance tools, <command>dak process-upload</command>. Specifically,
+updates to 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 some time to occur. Please
be patient.
</para>
<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; or submit a
+accurate. Next, 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.
+or priority to the new one. Use a Subject like
+<literal>override: PACKAGE1:section/priority, [...],
+ PACKAGEX:section/priority</literal>, and include the justification for the
+change in the body of the bug report.
</para>
<para>
For more information about <literal>override files</literal>, see
<para>
Note that the <literal>Section</literal> field describes both the section as
well as the subsection, which are described in <xref
-linkend="archive-sections"/> . If the section is main, it should be omitted.
+linkend="archive-sections"/>. If the section is main, it should be omitted.
The list of allowable subsections can be found in <ulink
url="&url-debian-policy;ch-archive.html#s-subsections"></ulink>.
</para>
<para>
Every developer has to be able to work with the Debian <ulink
url="&url-bts;">bug tracking system</ulink>. This includes
-knowing how to file bug reports properly (see <xref linkend="submit-bug"/> ),
+knowing how to file bug reports properly (see <xref linkend="submit-bug"/>),
how to update them and reorder them, and how to process and close them.
</para>
<para>
<para>
When responding to bugs, make sure that any discussion you have about bugs is
sent both to the original submitter of the bug, and to the bug itself (e.g.,
-<email>123@&bugs-host;</email>). If you're writing a new mail and you
+<email><replaceable>123</replaceable>@&bugs-host;</email>). If you're writing a new mail and you
don't remember the submitter email address, you can use the
-<email>123-submitter@&bugs-host;</email> email to contact the submitter
+<email><replaceable>123</replaceable>-submitter@&bugs-host;</email> email to contact the submitter
<emphasis>and</emphasis> to record your mail within the bug log (that means you
-don't need to send a copy of the mail to <email>123@&bugs-host;</email>).
+don't need to send a copy of the mail to <email><replaceable>123</replaceable>@&bugs-host;</email>).
</para>
<para>
If you get a bug which mentions FTBFS, this means Fails to build from source.
<para>
Once you've dealt with a bug report (e.g. fixed it), mark it as
<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
+<email><replaceable>123</replaceable>-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"/> .
+linkend="upload-bugfix"/>.
</para>
<para>
You should <emphasis>never</emphasis> close bugs via the bug server
you should ask for help on <link linkend="irc-channels">IRC</link> or
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
+reassign to <email><replaceable>packagename</replaceable>@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
<listitem>
<para>
If you have fixed a bug in your local copy, or if a fix has been committed to
-the CVS repository, you may tag the bug as <literal>pending</literal> to let
+the VCS repository, you may tag the bug as <literal>pending</literal> to let
people know that the bug is corrected and that it will be closed with the next
upload (add the <literal>closes:</literal> in the
<filename>changelog</filename>). This is particularly useful if you are
We prefer the <literal>closes: #<replaceable>XXX</replaceable></literal>
syntax, as it is the most concise entry and the easiest to integrate with the
text of the <filename>changelog</filename>. Unless specified different by the
-<replaceable>-v</replaceable>-switch to <command>dpkg-buildpackage</command>,
+<literal>-v</literal>-switch to <command>dpkg-buildpackage</command>,
only the bugs closed in the most recent changelog entry are closed (basically,
exactly the bugs mentioned in the changelog-part in the
<filename>.changes</filename> file are closed).
</para>
<para>
-Historically, uploads identified as <link linkend="nmu">Non-maintainer
+Historically, uploads identified as <link linkend="nmu">non-maintainer
upload (NMU)</link> were tagged <literal>fixed</literal> instead of being
closed, but that practice was ceased with the advent of version-tracking. The
same applied to the tag <literal>fixed-in-experimental</literal>.
to the bug tracking system's control address,
&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
+<email><replaceable>XXX</replaceable>-done@&bugs-host;</email>, where <replaceable>XXX</replaceable>
+is the bug number, and put Version: <replaceable>YYY</replaceable> and an empty line as the first two
lines of the body of the email, where <replaceable>YYY</replaceable> is the
first version where the bug has been fixed.
</para>
Bear in mind that it is not obligatory to close bugs using the changelog as
described above. If you simply want to close bugs that don't have anything to
do with an upload you made, do it by emailing an explanation to
-<email>XXX-done@&bugs-host;</email>. Do <emphasis
+<email><replaceable>XXX</replaceable>-done@&bugs-host;</email>. Do <emphasis
role="strong">not</emphasis> close bugs in the changelog entry of a version if
the changes in that version of the package don't have any bearing on the bug.
</para>
<para>
For general information on how to write your changelog entries, see <xref
-linkend="bpp-debian-changelog"/> .
+linkend="bpp-debian-changelog"/>.
</para>
</section>
fixing them themselves, sending security advisories, and maintaining
<literal>security.debian.org</literal>.
</para>
-<!-- information about the security database goes here once it's ready -->
-<!-- (mdz) -->
<para>
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-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:
+and promptly contact the security team by emailing &email-security-team;. If
+desired, email can be encrypted with the Debian Security Contact key, see
+<ulink url="https://www.debian.org/security/faq#contact"/> for details.
+<emphasis role="strong">DO NOT UPLOAD</emphasis> any packages for
+<literal>stable</literal> without contacting the team. Useful information
+includes, for example:
</para>
<itemizedlist>
<listitem>
<para>
+Whether or not the bug is already public.
+</para>
+</listitem>
+<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
+version that is present in a supported Debian release, as well as
<literal>testing</literal> and <literal>unstable</literal>.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
Any fixed packages that you have prepared yourself (send only the
-<literal>.diff.gz</literal> and <literal>.dsc</literal> files and read <xref
+<filename>.diff.gz</filename> and <filename>.dsc</filename> files and read <xref
linkend="bug-security-building"/> first)
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
Any information needed for the advisory (see <xref
-linkend="bug-security-advisories"/> )
+linkend="bug-security-advisories"/>)
</para>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>
+<para>As the maintainer of the package, you have the responsibility to
+maintain it, even in the stable release. You are in the best position
+to evaluate patches and test updated packages, so please see the sections
+below on how to prepare packages for the Security Team to handle.</para>
+
+<section id="bug-security-tracker">
+<title>The Security Tracker</title>
+<para>
+The security team maintains a central database, the
+<ulink url="http://security-tracker.debian.org/">Debian Security Tracker</ulink>.
+This contains all public information that is known about security issues:
+which packages and versions are affected or fixed, and thus whether stable,
+testing and/or unstable are vulnerable. Information that is still confidential
+is not added to the tracker.
+</para>
+<para>
+You can search it for a specific issue, but also on package name. Look
+for your package to see which issues are still open. If you can, please provide
+more information about those issues, or help to address them in your package.
+Instructions are on the tracker web pages.
+</para>
+</section>
+
<section id="bug-security-confidentiality">
<title>Confidentiality</title>
<para>
be sure to mention this fact.
</para>
<para>
-Please note that if secrecy is needed you may not upload a fix to
+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
+anywhere else, such as a public VCS 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.
</para>
requested: the problem has been known for a while, or the problem or exploit
has become public.
</para>
+<para>
+The Security Team has a PGP-key to enable encrypted communication about
+sensitive issues. See the <ulink url="http://www.debian.org/security/faq#contact">Security Team FAQ</ulink> for details.
+</para>
</section>
<section id="bug-security-advisories">
<systemitem role="package">patchutils</systemitem> package and
<command>debdiff</command> from <systemitem
role="package">devscripts</systemitem> are useful tools for this, see <xref
-linkend="debdiff"/> ).
+linkend="debdiff"/>).
</para>
<para>
Be sure to verify the following items:
<itemizedlist>
<listitem>
<para>
-Target the right distribution in your <filename>debian/changelog</filename>.
-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
+<emphasis role="strong">Target the right distribution</emphasis>
+in your <filename>debian/changelog</filename>:
+<replaceable>codename</replaceable><literal>-security</literal>
+(e.g. <literal>wheezy-security</literal>).
+Do not target <replaceable>distribution</replaceable><literal>-proposed-updates</literal> or
<literal>stable</literal>!
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-The upload should have urgency=high.
+The upload should have <emphasis role="strong">urgency=high</emphasis>.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
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 <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 and in the advisory.
-</para>
-</listitem>
-<listitem>
-<para>
-Make sure the version number is proper. It must be greater than the current
-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
-<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.
+determine whether a particular bug was fixed. Add <literal>closes:</literal>
+statements for any <emphasis role="strong">Debian bugs</emphasis> filed.
+Always include an external reference, preferably a <emphasis role="strong">CVE
+identifier</emphasis>, so that it can be cross-referenced. However, if a CVE
+identifier has not yet been assigned, do not wait for it but continue the
+process. The identifier can be cross-referenced later.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-Do not make source-only uploads if your package has any binary-all packages (do
-not use the <literal>-S</literal> option to
-<command>dpkg-buildpackage</command>). The <command>buildd</command>
-infrastructure will not build those. This point applies to normal package
-uploads as well.
+Make sure the <emphasis role="strong">version number</emphasis> is proper.
+It must be greater than the current 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, or one that conflicts with a
+binNMU. The convention is to append
+<literal>+deb</literal><replaceable>X</replaceable><literal>u1</literal> (where
+<replaceable>X</replaceable> is the major release number), e.g.
+<literal>1:2.4.3-4+deb7u1</literal>, of course increasing 1 for any subsequent
+uploads.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-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>).
+Unless the upstream source has been uploaded to
+<literal>security.debian.org</literal> before (by a previous security update),
+build the upload <emphasis role="strong">with full upstream source</emphasis>
+(<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>
<para>
-Be sure to use the exact same <filename>*.orig.tar.gz</filename> as used in the
+Be sure to use the <emphasis role="strong">exact same
+<filename>*.orig.tar.{gz,bz2,xz}</filename></emphasis> as used in the
normal archive, otherwise it is not possible to move the security fix into the
main archives later.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-Build the package on a clean system which only has packages installed from the
-distribution you are building for. If you do not have such a system yourself,
-you can use a debian.org machine (see <xref linkend="server-machines"/> ) or
-setup a chroot (see <xref linkend="pbuilder"/> and <xref
-linkend="debootstrap"/> ).
+Build the package on a <emphasis role="strong">clean system</emphasis> which only
+has packages installed from the distribution you are building for. If you do not
+have such a system yourself, you can use a debian.org machine (see
+<xref linkend="server-machines"/>) or setup a chroot (see
+<xref linkend="pbuilder"/> and <xref linkend="debootstrap"/>).
</para>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>
<title>Uploading the fixed package</title>
<para>
Do <emphasis role="strong">NOT</emphasis> upload a package to the 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
+upload queue (on <literal>security-master.debian.org</literal>)
+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 <literal>
-proposed-updates</literal> without coordinating with the security team.
+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,
Once you have created and tested the new package and it has been approved by
the security team, it needs to be uploaded so that it can be installed in the
archives. For security uploads, the place to upload to is
-<literal>ftp://security-master.debian.org/pub/SecurityUploadQueue/</literal> .
+<literal>ftp://security-master.debian.org/pub/SecurityUploadQueue/</literal>.
</para>
<para>
Once an upload to the security queue has been accepted, the package will
-automatically be rebuilt for all architectures and stored for verification by
+automatically be built for all architectures and stored for verification by
the security team.
</para>
<para>
</section>
<section id="archive-manip">
-<title>Moving, removing, renaming, adopting, and orphaning packages</title>
+<title>Moving, removing, renaming, orphaning, adopting, and reintroducing packages</title>
<para>
Some archive manipulation operations are not automated in the Debian upload
process. These procedures should be manually followed by maintainers. This
<title>Moving packages</title>
<para>
Sometimes a package will change its section. For instance, a package from the
-`non-free' section might be GPL'd in a later version, in which case the package
+<literal>non-free</literal> section might be GPL'd in a later version, in which case the package
should be moved to `main' or `contrib'.<footnote><para> See the <ulink
url="&url-debian-policy;">Debian Policy Manual</ulink> for
guidelines on what section a package belongs in. </para> </footnote>
the package (see the <ulink
url="&url-debian-policy;">Debian Policy Manual</ulink> for
details). You must ensure that you include the
-<filename>.orig.tar.gz</filename> in your upload (even if you are not uploading
+<filename>.orig.tar.{gz,bz2,xz}</filename> in your upload (even if you are not uploading
a new upstream version), or it will not appear in the new section together with
the rest of the package. If your new section is valid, it will be moved
automatically. If it does not, then contact the ftpmasters in order to
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
-described in <xref linkend="override-file"/> .
+described in <xref linkend="override-file"/>.
</para>
</section>
<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;
+against <systemitem role="package">&ftp-debian-org;</systemitem> 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> --
+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.
+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.
+to these rules when you use it to report a bug against the
+<systemitem role="package">&ftp-debian-org;</systemitem> pseudo-package.
</para>
<para>
</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
+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
-<literal>unstable</literal> and no package in <literal>testing
-</literal> depends on it.
+<literal>unstable</literal> and no package in
+<literal>testing</literal> depends on it. (Removals from
+<literal>testing</literal> are possible though by filing a removal bug report
+against the <systemitem role="package">&release-debian-org;</systemitem>
+pseudo-package. See the section <xref linkend="removals"/>.)
</para>
<para>
There is one exception when an explicit removal request is not necessary: If a
-(source or binary) package is an orphan, it will be removed semi-automatically.
-For a binary-package, this means if there is no longer any source package
-producing this binary package; if the binary package is just no longer produced
-on some architectures, a removal request is still necessary. For a
-source-package, this means that all binary packages it refers to have been
+(source or binary) package is no longer built from source, it will be removed
+semi-automatically. For a binary-package, this means if there is no longer any
+source package producing this binary package; if the binary package is just no
+longer produced on some architectures, a removal request is still necessary. For
+a source-package, this means that all binary packages it refers to have been
taken over by another source package.
</para>
<para>
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>,
+Other useful programs include <command>apt-cache rdepends</command>,
<command>apt-rdepends</command>, <command>build-rdeps</command> (in the
<systemitem role="package">devscripts</systemitem> package) and
<command>grep-dctrl</command>. Removal of
code has evolved into another package (e.g. <literal>libfoo12</literal> was
removed because <literal>libfoo13</literal> supersedes it) or closed if the
software is simply no longer part of Debian.
+When closing the bugs,
+to avoid marking the bugs as fixed in versions of the packages
+in previous Debian releases, they should be marked as fixed
+in the version <literal><most-recent-version-ever-in-Debian>+rm</literal>.
</para>
<section id="s5.9.2.1">
<title>Removing packages from <filename>Incoming</filename></title>
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
+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
+has moved into the archive, file a bug against <systemitem role="package">&ftp-debian-org;</systemitem>
+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>
you wish to replace the upstream source tarball of your package, you will need
to upload it with a different version. An easy possibility is to replace
<filename>foo_1.00.orig.tar.gz</filename> with
-<filename>foo_1.00+0.orig.tar.gz</filename>. This restriction gives each file
-on the ftp site a unique name, which helps to ensure consistency across the
-mirror network.
+<filename>foo_1.00+0.orig.tar.gz</filename> or
+<filename>foo_1.00.orig.tar.bz2</filename>. This restriction gives each
+file on the ftp site a unique name, which helps to ensure consistency
+across the mirror network.
</para>
</section>
It is not OK to simply take over a package that you feel is neglected — that
would be package hijacking. You can, of course, contact the current maintainer
and ask them if you may take over the package. If you have reason to believe a
-maintainer has gone AWOL (absent without leave), see <xref linkend="mia-qa"/> .
+maintainer has gone AWOL (absent without leave), see <xref linkend="mia-qa"/>.
</para>
<para>
Generally, you may not take over the package without the assent of the current
If you take over an old package, you probably want to be listed as the
package's official maintainer in the bug system. This will happen
automatically once you upload a new version with an updated
-<literal>Maintainer:</literal> field, although it can take a few hours after
+<literal>Maintainer</literal> field, although it can take a few hours after
the upload is done. If you do not expect to upload a new version for a while,
you can use <xref linkend="pkg-tracking-system"/> to get the bug reports.
However, make sure that the old maintainer has no problem with the fact that
</para>
</section>
+<section id="reintroducing-pkgs">
+<title>Reintroducing packages</title>
+<para>
+Packages are often removed due to release-critical bugs, absent maintainers,
+too few users or poor quality in general. While the process of reintroduction
+is similar to the initial packaging process, you can avoid some pitfalls by
+doing some historical research first.
+</para>
+<para>
+You should check why the package was removed in the first place. This
+information can be found in the removal item in the news section of the PTS
+page for the package or by browsing the log of
+<ulink url="http://&ftp-master-host;/#removed">removals</ulink>.
+The removal bug will tell you why the package was removed and will give some
+indication of what you will need to work on in order to reintroduce the package.
+It may indicate that the best way forward is to switch to some other piece of
+software instead of reintroducing the package.
+</para>
+<para>
+It may be appropriate to contact the former maintainers to find out if
+they are working on reintroducing the package, interested in co-maintaining
+the package or interested in sponsoring the package if needed.
+</para>
+<para>
+You should do all the things required before introducing new packages
+(<xref linkend="newpackage"/>).
+</para>
+<para>
+You should base your work on the latest packaging available that is suitable.
+That might be the latest version from <literal>unstable</literal>, which will
+still be present in the <ulink url="&snap-debian-org;">snapshot archive</ulink>.
+</para>
+<para>
+The version control system used by the previous maintainer might contain useful
+changes, so it might be a good idea to have a look there. Check if the <filename>control</filename>
+file of the previous package contained any headers linking to the version
+control system for the package and if it still exists.
+</para>
+<para>
+Package removals from <literal>unstable</literal> (not <literal>testing</literal>,
+<literal>stable</literal> or <literal>oldstable</literal>) trigger the
+closing of all bugs related to the package. You should look through all the
+closed bugs (including archived bugs) and unarchive and reopen any that were
+closed in a version ending in <literal>+rm</literal> and still apply. Any that
+no longer apply should be marked as fixed in the correct version if that is
+known.
+</para>
+</section>
+
</section>
<section id="porting">
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, 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,
+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">
<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 <literal>unstable</literal> chroot environment (see <xref
-linkend="debootstrap"/> ).
+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
<literal>Build-Depends-Indep</literal>. Finally, try building your package
within that chrooted environment. These steps can be automated by the use of
the <command>pbuilder</command> program which is provided by the package of the
-same name (see <xref linkend="pbuilder"/> ).
+same name (see <xref linkend="pbuilder"/>).
</para>
<para>
If you can't set up a proper chroot, <command>dpkg-depcheck</command> may be of
-assistance (see <xref linkend="dpkg-depcheck"/> ).
+assistance (see <xref linkend="dpkg-depcheck"/>).
</para>
<para>
See the <ulink url="&url-debian-policy;">Debian Policy
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-Don't set architecture to a value other than <literal>all</literal> or
+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
+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.
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-Make sure your debian/rules contains separate <literal>binary-arch</literal>
-and <literal>binary-indep</literal> targets, as the Debian Policy Manual
+Make sure your <filename>debian/rules</filename> 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>.
-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 <literal>binary-arch</literal> 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
<para>
Sometimes the initial porter upload is problematic because the environment in
which the package was built was not good enough (outdated or obsolete library,
-bad compiler, ...). Then you may just need to recompile it in an updated
+bad compiler, etc.). 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>dak</command> refuses to install new packages if they don't have a
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 have inter-dependencies
-generated using dpkg's substitution variable <literal>$(Source-Version)
-</literal>.
+generated using dpkg's substitution variable <literal>$(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 <literal>
-b<replaceable>number</replaceable></literal>.
+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
-<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
+<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
<title>When to do a source NMU if you are a porter</title>
<para>
Porters doing a source NMU generally follow the guidelines found in <xref
-linkend="nmu"/> , just like non-porters. However, it is expected that the wait
+linkend="nmu"/>, just like non-porters. However, it is expected that the wait
cycle for a porter's source NMU is smaller than for a non-porter, since porters
have to cope with a large quantity of packages. Again, the situation varies
depending on the distribution they are uploading to. It also varies whether
release managers decide and announce which architectures are candidates.
</para>
<para>
-If you are a porter doing an NMU for <literal>unstable</literal>, the above
+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
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
+<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 <literal>serious</literal> or greater. This
-ensures that a single source package can be used to compile every supported
+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.
<title>Porter tools</title>
<para>
Descriptions of several porting tools can be found in <xref
-linkend="tools-porting"/> .
+linkend="tools-porting"/>.
</para>
</section>
<para>
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 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>
+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">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
+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.
+enough to reproduce problems.
</para>
<para>
-Most of the data produced by <systemitem role="package">wanna-build
-</systemitem> which is generally useful to porters is available on the
+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>
also enable Debian to recompile entire distributions quickly.
</para>
<para>
-The buildds admins of each arch can be contacted at the mail address
-<literal><replaceable>arch</replaceable>@buildd.debian.org</literal>.
+The wanna-build team, in charge of the buildds,
+can be reached at <literal>debian-wb-team@lists.debian.org</literal>.
+To determine who (wanna-build team, release team) and how (mail, BTS)
+to contact, refer to <ulink url="&url-wb-team;"></ulink>.
</para>
+
+<para>
+When requesting binNMUs or give-backs (retries after a failed build),
+please use the format described at <ulink url="&url-release-wb;"/>.
+</para>
+
</section>
</section>
<listitem>
<para>
In order to prevent autobuilders from needlessly trying to build your package,
-it must be included in <filename>packages-arch-specific</filename>, a list used
+it must be included in <filename>Packages-arch-specific</filename>, a list used
by the <command>wanna-build</command> script. The current version is available
-as <ulink
-url="&url-cvsweb;srcdep/Packages-arch-specific?cvsroot=dak"></ulink>;
+as <ulink url="&url-buildd-p-a-s;"/>;
please see the top of the file for whom to contact for changes.
</para>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>
<para>
Please note that it is insufficient to only add your package to
-Packages-arch-specific without making it fail to build on unsupported
+<filename>Packages-arch-specific</filename> without making it fail to build on unsupported
architectures: A porter or any other person trying to build your package might
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>
-
-<section id="nmu">
-<title>Non-Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)</title>
+<section id="non-free-buildd">
+<title>Marking non-free packages as auto-buildable</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.
+By default packages from the <literal>non-free</literal> section are not built by the autobuilder
+network (mostly because the license of the packages could disapprove).
+To enable a package to be build you need to perform the following
+steps:
</para>
+<orderedlist numeration="arabic">
+<listitem>
<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="wanna-build"/> for
-some more information.
+Check whether it is legally allowed and technically possible
+to auto-build the package;
</para>
+</listitem>
+<listitem>
<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.
+Add <literal>XS-Autobuild: yes</literal> into the header part
+of <filename>debian/control</filename>;
</para>
+</listitem>
+<listitem>
<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.
+Send an email to &email-nonfree-release; and explain why the
+package can legitimately and technically be auto-built.
</para>
+</listitem>
+</orderedlist>
+</section>
+</section>
+
+<section id="nmu">
+<title>Non-Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)</title>
<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>
+<title>When and how to do an NMU</title>
+
<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.
+Before doing an NMU, consider the following questions:
</para>
+<itemizedlist>
+<listitem>
<para>
-A NMU should follow all conventions, written down in this section. For an
-upload to <literal>testing</literal> or <literal>unstable</literal>, this
-order of steps is recommended:
+Have you geared the NMU towards helping the maintainer? As there might
+be disagreement on the notion of whether the maintainer actually needs
+help on not, the DELAYED queue exists to give time to the maintainer to
+react and has the beneficial side-effect of allowing for independent
+reviews of the NMU diff.
</para>
-<itemizedlist>
+</listitem>
<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? ("Bugs" means any kind of bugs, e.g.
+wishlist bugs for packaging a new upstream version, but care should be
+taken to minimize the impact to the maintainer.) Fixing cosmetic issues
+or changing the packaging style (e.g. switching from cdbs to dh) 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
+them? In general it should be considered preferable that maintainers take care
+of an issue themselves and that they are given the chance to review and
+correct your patch, because they 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
+<command>nmudiff</command> script in the <systemitem role="package">devscripts</systemitem> package
+might be helpful.
</para>
<para>
-For the <literal>testing</literal> 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 <literal>testing</literal> is through
-<literal>unstable</literal>.
+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 integrating your changes into the normal package
+workflow and thus increases the chances that integration 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"><filename>debian/README.source</filename></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, with no maintainer activity on the bug for 7 days and no indication that a fix is in progress: 0 days
</para>
+</listitem>
+<listitem>
<para>
-For the differences for Porters NMUs, please see <xref
-linkend="source-nmu-when-porter"/> .
+Upload fixing only release-critical bugs older than 7 days: 2 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).
+Upload fixing only release-critical and important bugs: 5 days
</para>
-</section>
-
-<section id="nmu-version">
-<title>NMU version numbering</title>
+</listitem>
+<listitem>
<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.
+Other NMUs: 10 days
</para>
+</listitem>
+</itemizedlist>
+
<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 block 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 <literal>testing</literal> or <literal>stable
-</literal>, 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>
+<title>NMUs and <filename>debian/changelog</filename></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>
-<para>
-By convention, source NMU changelog entries start with the line
+Just like any other (source) upload, NMUs must add an entry to
+<filename>debian/changelog</filename>, 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 way to version NMUs differs for native and non-native packages.
</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 the package is a native package (without a Debian revision in the version number),
+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</literal>, then an NMU would get
+version <literal>1.5+nmu1</literal>.
</para>
<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.
+If the package is not a native package, you should add a minor version number
+to the Debian revision part of the version number (the portion after the last
+hyphen). This extra number must start at <literal>1</literal>. For example,
+if the current version is <literal>1.5-2</literal>, then an NMU would get
+version <literal>1.5-2.1</literal>. If a new upstream version
+is packaged in the NMU, the Debian revision is set to <literal>0</literal>, for
+example <literal>1.6-0.1</literal>.
</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.
+In both cases, if the last upload was also an NMU, the counter should
+be increased. For example, 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>.
</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.
+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>
+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>X</replaceable>u<replaceable>Y</replaceable></literal>
+should be used, where <replaceable>X</replaceable> is the major release number,
+and <replaceable>Y</replaceable> is a counter starting at <literal>1</literal>.
+For example, while Wheezy (Debian 7.0) is stable, a security NMU to stable for
+a package at version <literal>1.5-3</literal> would have version
+<literal>1.5-3+deb7u1</literal>, whereas a security NMU to Jessie would get
+version <literal>1.5-3+deb8u1</literal>.
</para>
</section>
-<section id="nmu-build">
-<title>Building source NMUs</title>
+<section id="nmu-delayed">
+<title>Using the <literal>DELAYED/</literal> queue</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"/> .
+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 they have 7 days to
+react. During this time, the maintainer can ask you to delay the upload some
+more, or cancel your upload.
</para>
+
+<para>
+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 themselves.
+</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.
+If you make an NMU to <literal>DELAYED</literal> and the maintainer updates
+the 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="ack-nmu">
-<title>Acknowledging an NMU</title>
+<section id="nmu-maintainer">
+<title>NMUs from the maintainer's point of view</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.
+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>
-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"/> ).
+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="nmu-vs-qa">
-<title>NMU vs QA uploads</title>
+<section id="nmu-binnmu">
+<title>Source NMUs vs Binary-only NMUs (binNMUs)</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 <literal>Debian QA Group
-<packages@qa.debian.org></literal>.
+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>
+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-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.
+BinNMUs are usually triggered on the buildds by wanna-build.
+An entry is added to <filename>debian/changelog</filename>,
+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>
+
+<para>
+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 <filename>debian/changelog</filename>.
+</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
-<literal>non-maintainer</literal> 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 <literal>Maintainer</literal>
+or <literal>Uploader</literal> 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 id="nmu-team-upload">
+<title>NMUs vs team uploads</title>
+
+<para>
+Sometimes you are fixing and/or updating a package because you are member of a
+packaging team (which uses a mailing list as <literal>Maintainer</literal> or <literal>Uploader</literal>, see <xref
+linkend="collaborative-maint"/>) but you don't want to add yourself to <literal>Uploaders</literal>
+because you do not plan to contribute regularly to this specific package. If it
+conforms with your team's policy, you can perform a normal upload without
+being listed directly as <literal>Maintainer</literal> or <literal>Uploader</literal>. In that case, you should
+start your changelog entry with the following line:
+</para>
+
+<screen>
+ * Team upload.
+</screen>
+
</section>
</section>
maintenance duties by several people. This collaboration is almost always a
good idea, since it generally results in higher quality and faster bug fix
turnaround times. It is strongly recommended that packages with a priority of
-<literal>Standard</literal> or which are part of the base set have
+<literal>standard</literal> or which are part of the base set have
co-maintainers.
</para>
<para>
<para>
Setup the co-maintainer with access to the sources you build the package from.
Generally this implies you are using a network-capable version control system,
-such as <command>CVS</command> or <command>Subversion</command>. Alioth (see
-<xref linkend="alioth"/> ) provides such tools, amongst others.
+such as <literal>CVS</literal> or <literal>Subversion</literal>. Alioth (see
+<xref linkend="alioth"/>) provides such tools, amongst others.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-Using the PTS (<xref linkend="pkg-tracking-system"/> ), the co-maintainers
+Using the PTS (<xref linkend="pkg-tracking-system"/>), the co-maintainers
should subscribe themselves to the appropriate source package.
</para>
</listitem>
<para>
Another form of collaborative maintenance is team maintenance, which is
recommended if you maintain several packages with the same group of developers.
-In that case, the Maintainer and Uploaders field of each package must be
+In that case, the <literal>Maintainer</literal> and <literal>Uploaders</literal> field of each package must be
managed with care. It is recommended to choose between one of the two
following schemes:
</para>
<orderedlist numeration="arabic">
<listitem>
<para>
-Put the team member mainly responsible for the package in the Maintainer field.
-In the Uploaders, put the mailing list address, and the team members who care
+Put the team member mainly responsible for the package in the <literal>Maintainer</literal> field.
+In the <literal>Uploaders</literal>, put the mailing list address, and the team members who care
for the package.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-Put the mailing list address in the Maintainer field. In the Uploaders field,
+Put the mailing list address in the <literal>Maintainer</literal> field. In the <literal>Uploaders</literal> field,
put the team members who care for the package. In this case, you must make
sure the mailing list accept bug reports without any human interaction (like
moderation for non-subscribers).
</para>
</listitem>
</orderedlist>
+
<para>
In any case, it is a bad idea to automatically put all team members in the
-Uploaders field. It clutters the Developer's Package Overview listing (see
-<xref linkend="ddpo"/> ) with packages one doesn't really care for, and creates
-a false sense of good maintenance.
+<literal>Uploaders</literal> field. It clutters the Developer's Package Overview listing (see
+<xref linkend="ddpo"/>) with packages one doesn't really care for, and creates
+a false sense of good maintenance. For the same reason, team members do
+not need to add themselves to the <literal>Uploaders</literal> field just because they are
+uploading the package once, they can do a “Team upload” (see <xref
+linkend="nmu-team-upload"/>). Conversely, it is a bad idea to keep a
+package with only the mailing list address as a <literal>Maintainer</literal> and no
+<literal>Uploaders</literal>.
</para>
</section>
<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 <literal>testing
-</literal>. This way, <literal>testing</literal> should always be close to
+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>
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 <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;
+previous <literal>testing</literal> transition is taken into account;
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
It must not have new release-critical bugs (RC bugs affecting the version
-available in <literal>unstable</literal>, but not affecting the version in
+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 <literal>unstable</literal>. <xref linkend="dak-ls"/> may be of interest
+in <literal>unstable</literal>. <link linkend="dak-ls">dak ls</link> may be of interest
to check that information;
</para>
</listitem>
all the necessary criteria);
</para>
</listitem>
+<listitem>
+<para>
+The phase of the project. I.e. automatic transitions are turned off during
+the <emphasis>freeze</emphasis> of the <literal>testing</literal> distribution.
+</para>
+</listitem>
</itemizedlist>
<para>
To find out whether a package is progressing into <literal>testing</literal>
</para>
<para>
Sometimes, some packages never enter <literal>testing</literal> because the
-set of inter-relationship is too complicated and cannot be sorted out by the
+set of interrelationship is too complicated and cannot be sorted out by the
scripts. See below for details.
</para>
<para>
shows build dependencies which are not considered by britney.
</para>
<section id="outdated">
-<title>out-of-date</title>
+<title>Out-of-date</title>
<para>
<!-- FIXME: better rename this file than document rampant professionalism? -->
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
+currently, it's empty). outdated has nothing whatsoever to do with the
architectures this package has in <literal>testing</literal>.
</para>
<para>
</tgroup>
</informaltable>
<para>
-The package is out of date on alpha in <literal>unstable</literal>, and will
+The package is out of date on <literal>alpha</literal> 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.
+package is still out of date on <literal>alpha</literal>, and will not
+propagate to <literal>testing</literal>.
</para>
<para>
However, if ftp-master removes a package in <literal>unstable</literal> (here
</informaltable>
<para>
In this case, the package is up to date on all release architectures in
-<literal>unstable</literal> (and the extra <literal>hurd-i386</literal>
+<literal>unstable</literal> (and the extra <literal>hurd-i386</literal>
doesn't matter, as it's not a release architecture).
</para>
<para>
be removed to allow <literal>b</literal> in.
</para>
<para>
-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
+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>
</section>
<section id="circular">
-<title>circular dependencies</title>
+<title>Circular dependencies</title>
<para>
A situation which is not handled very well by britney is if package
<literal>a</literal> depends on the new version of package
</section>
<section id="s5.13.2.4">
-<title>influence of package in testing</title>
+<title>Influence of package in testing</title>
<para>
-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:
+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 <literal>
-testing</literal> is out of sync on the different arches: Then any arch might
+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.
+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 <literal>
-testing</literal> has on a new version of the same package is that the new
+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>
<section id="details">
-<title>details</title>
+<title>Details</title>
<para>
If you are interested in details, this is how britney works:
</para>
The packages are looked at to determine whether they are valid candidates.
This gives the update excuses. The most common reasons why a package is not
considered are too young, RC-bugginess, and out of date on some arches. For
-this part of britney, the release managers have hammers of various sizes to
-force britney to consider a package. (Also, the base freeze is coded in that
-part of britney.) (There is a similar thing for binary-only updates, but this
-is not described here. If you're interested in that, please peruse the code.)
+this part of britney, the release managers have hammers of various sizes,
+called hints (see below), to force britney to consider a package.
</para>
<para>
-Now, the more complex part happens: Britney tries to update <literal>testing
-</literal> with the valid candidates. For that, britney tries to add each
+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
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
-<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>
+If you want to see more details, you can look it up on <ulink
+url="http://&ftp-master-host;/testing/update_output/"></ulink>.
</para>
<para>
The hints are available via <ulink
-url="http://&ftp-master-host;/testing/hints/"></ulink>.
+url="http://&ftp-master-host;/testing/hints/"></ulink>, where you can find
+the
+<ulink url="http://&ftp-master-host;/testing/hints/README">description</ulink>
+as well. With the hints, the Debian Release team can block or unblock
+packages, ease or force packages into <literal>testing</literal>, remove
+packages from <literal>testing</literal>, approve uploads to
+<link linkend="t-p-u">testing-proposed-updates</link> or override the urgency.
</para>
</section>
<section id="t-p-u">
<title>Direct updates to testing</title>
<para>
-The <literal>testing</literal> distribution is fed with packages from
+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>.
+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
<para>
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
+(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
-<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
+Version numbers are usually selected by adding the codename of the
+<literal>testing</literal> distribution and a running number, like
+<literal>1.2squeeze1</literal> for the first upload through
+<literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal> of package version
<literal>1.2</literal>.
</para>
<para>
<listitem>
<para>
Make sure that your package really needs to go through
-<literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal>, and can't go through <literal>
-unstable</literal>;
+<literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal>, and can't go through
+<literal>unstable</literal>;
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
Such bugs are presumed to have an impact on the chances that the package will
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>.
+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>
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
+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>
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 <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.
+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 <literal>libacme-foo0</literal>. Removing the old
+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>
~ianmdlvl / developers-reference.git / blobdiff