You should set the subject of the bug to ``ITP: <replaceable>foo</replaceable>
-- <replaceable>short description</replaceable>'', substituting the name of the
new package for <replaceable>foo</replaceable>. The severity of the bug report
-must be set to <emphasis>wishlist</emphasis>. If you feel it's necessary, send
+must be set to <literal>wishlist</literal>. If you feel it's necessary, send
a copy to &email-debian-devel; by putting the address in the
<literal>X-Debbugs-CC:</literal> header of the message (no, don't use
<literal>CC:</literal>, because that way the message's subject won't indicate
<para>
It lets the rest of the maintainers know more about the package than the one
line description and the usual changelog entry ``Initial release'' that gets
-posted to <literal>debian-devel-changes</literal>.
+posted to &email-debian-devel-changes;.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-It is helpful to the people who live off unstable (and form our first line of
-testers). We should encourage these people.
+It is helpful to the people who live off <literal>unstable</literal> (and form
+our first line of testers). We should encourage these people.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
The <filename>debian/changelog</filename> file conforms to a certain structure,
with a number of different fields. One field of note, the
-<emphasis>distribution</emphasis>, is described in <xref
+<literal>distribution</literal>, is described in <xref
linkend="distribution"/> . More information about the structure of this file
can be found in the Debian Policy section titled
<filename>debian/changelog</filename>.
<itemizedlist>
<listitem>
<para>
-the so-called <emphasis>native</emphasis> packages, where there is no
+the so-called <literal>native</literal> packages, where there is no
distinction between the original sources and the patches applied for Debian
</para>
</listitem>
<literal>Distribution</literal> field of the <literal>.changes</literal> file.
</para>
<para>
-There are several possible values for this field: `stable', `unstable',
-`testing-proposed-updates' and `experimental'. Normally, packages are uploaded
-into <emphasis>unstable</emphasis>.
+There are several possible values for this field: <literal>stable</literal>,
+<literal>unstable</literal>, <literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal> and
+<literal>experimental</literal>. Normally, packages are uploaded into
+<literal>unstable</literal>.
</para>
<para>
-Actually, there are two other possible distributions: `stable-security' and
-`testing-security', but read <xref linkend="bug-security"/> for more
-information on those.
+Actually, there are two other possible distributions: <literal>stable-security
+</literal> and <literal>testing-security</literal>, but read
+<xref linkend="bug-security"/> for more information on those.
</para>
<para>
It is not possible to upload a package into several distributions at the same
time.
</para>
<section id="upload-stable">
-<title>Special case: uploads to the <emphasis>stable</emphasis> distribution</title>
+<title>Special case: uploads to the <literal>stable</literal> and
+<literal>oldstable</literal> distributions</title>
<para>
-Uploading to <emphasis>stable</emphasis> means that the package will transfered
-to the <emphasis>p-u-new</emphasis>-queue for review by the stable release
-managers, and if approved will be installed in
+Uploading to <literal>stable</literal> means that the package will transfered
+to the <literal>proposed-updates-new</literal> queue for review by the stable
+release managers, and if approved will be installed in
<filename>stable-proposed-updates</filename> directory of the Debian archive.
-From there, it will be included in <emphasis>stable</emphasis> with the next
+From there, it will be included in <literal>stable</literal> with the next
point release.
</para>
<para>
-Extra care should be taken when uploading to <emphasis>stable</emphasis>.
-Basically, a package should only be uploaded to stable if one of the following
-happens:
+To ensure that your upload will be accepted, you should discuss the changes
+with the stable release team before you upload. For that, send a mail to
+the &email-debian-release; mailing list, including the patch you want to
+apply to the package version currently in <literal>stable</literal>. Always
+be verbose and detailed in your changelog entries for uploads to the
+<literal>stable</literal> distribution.
+</para>
+<para>
+Extra care should be taken when uploading to <literal>stable</literal>.
+Basically, a package should only be uploaded to <literal>stable</literal> if
+one of the following happens:
</para>
<itemizedlist>
<listitem>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>
<para>
-In the past, uploads to <emphasis>stable</emphasis> were used to address
+In the past, uploads to <literal>stable</literal> were used to address
security problems as well. However, this practice is deprecated, as uploads
used for Debian security advisories are automatically copied to the appropriate
<filename>proposed-updates</filename> archive when the advisory is released.
See <xref linkend="bug-security"/> for detailed information on handling
-security problems.
+security problems. If the security teams deems the problem to be too
+benign to be fixed through a <literal>DSA</literal>, the stable release
+managers are usually willing to include your fix nonetheless in a regular
+upload to <literal>stable</literal>.
</para>
<para>
Changing anything else in the package that isn't important is discouraged,
because even trivial fixes can cause bugs later on.
</para>
<para>
-Packages uploaded to <emphasis>stable</emphasis> need to be compiled on systems
-running <emphasis>stable</emphasis>, so that their dependencies are limited to
-the libraries (and other packages) available in <emphasis>stable</emphasis>;
-for example, a package uploaded to <emphasis>stable</emphasis> that depends on
-a library package that only exists in unstable will be rejected. Making
-changes to dependencies of other packages (by messing with
-<literal>Provides</literal> or shlibs files), possibly making those other
-packages uninstallable, is strongly discouraged.
-</para>
-<para>
-The Release Team (which can be reached at
-&email-debian-release;) will regularly evaluate the uploads To
-<emphasis>stable-proposed-updates</emphasis> and decide if your package can be
-included in <emphasis>stable</emphasis>. Please be clear (and verbose, if
-necessary) in your changelog entries for uploads to
-<emphasis>stable</emphasis>, because otherwise the package won't be considered
-for inclusion.
+Packages uploaded to <literal>stable</literal> need to be compiled on systems
+running <literal>stable</literal>, so that their dependencies are limited to
+the libraries (and other packages) available in <literal>stable</literal>;
+for example, a package uploaded to <literal>stable</literal> that depends on
+a library package that only exists in <literal>unstable</literal> will be
+rejected. Making changes to dependencies of other packages (by messing with
+<literal>Provides</literal> or <literal>shlibs</literal> files), possibly
+making those other packages uninstallable, is strongly discouraged.
</para>
<para>
-It's best practice to speak with the stable release manager
-<emphasis>before</emphasis> uploading to
-<emphasis>stable</emphasis>/<emphasis>stable-proposed-updates</emphasis>, so
-that the uploaded package fits the needs of the next point release.
+Uploads to the <literal>oldstable</literal> distributions are possible as
+long as it hasn't been archived. The same rules as for <literal>stable
+</literal> apply.
</para>
</section>
<section id="upload-t-p-u">
-<title>Special case: uploads to <emphasis>testing/testing-proposed-updates</emphasis></title>
+<title>Special case: uploads to <literal>testing/testing-proposed-updates</literal></title>
<para>
Please see the information in the <link linkend="t-p-u">testing
section</link> for details.
the directory <ulink
url="ftp://&ftp-master-host;&upload-queue;">&upload-queue;</ulink>.
To get the files processed there, they need to be signed with a key in the
-debian keyring.
+Debian Developers keyring or the Debian Maintainers keyring
+(see <ulink url="&url-wiki-dm;"></ulink>).
</para>
<para>
Please note that you should transfer the changes file last. Otherwise, your
<section id="delayed-incoming">
<title>Delayed uploads</title>
<para>
-Delayed uploads are done for the moment via the delayed queue at gluck. The
-upload-directory is <literal>gluck:~tfheen/DELAYED/[012345678]-day</literal>.
-0-day is uploaded multiple times per day to ftp-master.
+Delayed uploads are done for the moment via the delayed queue at <literal>gluck
+</literal>. The upload-directory is
+<literal>gluck:~tfheen/DELAYED/[012345678]-day</literal>. 0-day is uploaded
+multiple times per day to <literal>&ftp-master-host;</literal>.
</para>
<para>
With a fairly recent dput, this section
incoming = ~tfheen
</screen>
<para>
-in ~/.dput.cf should work fine for uploading to the DELAYED queue.
+in <filename>~/.dput.cf</filename> should work fine for uploading to the
+<literal>DELAYED</literal> queue.
</para>
<para>
<emphasis>Note:</emphasis> Since this upload queue goes to
-<literal>ftp-master</literal>, the prescription found in <xref
+<literal>&ftp-master-host;</literal>, the prescription found in <xref
linkend="upload-ftp-master"/> applies here as well.
</para>
</section>
<title>Security uploads</title>
<para>
Do <emphasis role="strong">NOT</emphasis> upload a package to the security
-upload queue (oldstable-security, stable-security, etc.) without prior
-authorization from the security team. If the package does not exactly meet the
-team's requirements, it will cause many problems and delays in dealing with the
-unwanted upload. For details, please see section <xref
-linkend="bug-security"/> .
+upload queue (<literal>oldstable-security</literal>, <literal>stable-security
+</literal>, etc.) without prior authorization from the security team. If the
+package does not exactly meet the team's requirements, it will cause many
+problems and delays in dealing with the unwanted upload. For details, please
+see section <xref linkend="bug-security"/> .
</para>
</section>
<section id="s5.6.5">
<title>Other upload queues</title>
<para>
-The scp queues on ftp-master, and security are mostly unusable due to the login
-restrictions on those hosts.
+The scp queues on <literal>&ftp-master-host;</literal>, and <literal>
+security.debian.org</literal> are mostly unusable due to the login restrictions
+on those hosts.
</para>
<para>
The anonymous queues on ftp.uni-erlangen.de and ftp.uk.debian.org are currently
The queue in Japan will be replaced with a new queue on hp.debian.or.jp some
day.
</para>
-<para>
-For the time being, the anonymous ftp queue on auric.debian.org (the former
-ftp-master) works, but it is deprecated and will be removed at some point in
-the future.
-</para>
</section>
<section id="upload-notification">
The Debian archive maintainers are responsible for handling package uploads.
For the most part, uploads are automatically handled on a daily basis by the
archive maintenance tools, <command>katie</command>. Specifically, updates to
-existing packages to the `unstable' distribution are handled automatically. In
-other cases, notably new packages, placing the uploaded package into the
-distribution is handled manually. When uploads are handled manually, the
-change to the archive may take up to a month to occur. Please be patient.
+existing packages to the <literal>unstable</literal> distribution are handled
+automatically. In other cases, notably new packages, placing the uploaded
+package into the distribution is handled manually. When uploads are handled
+manually, the change to the archive may take up to a month to occur. Please
+be patient.
</para>
<para>
In any case, you will receive an email notification indicating that the package
</para>
<para>
The archive maintainers keep track of the canonical sections and priorities for
-packages in the <emphasis>override file</emphasis>. If there is a disparity
-between the <emphasis>override file</emphasis> and the package's fields as
+packages in the <literal>override file</literal>. If there is a disparity
+between the <literal>override file</literal> and the package's fields as
indicated in <filename>debian/control</filename>, then you will receive an
email noting the divergence when the package is installed into the archive.
You can either correct your <filename>debian/control</filename> file for your
-next upload, or else you may wish to make a change in the <emphasis>override
-file</emphasis>.
+next upload, or else you may wish to make a change in the <literal>override
+file</literal>.
</para>
<para>
To alter the actual section that a package is put in, you need to first make
or priority to the new one. Be sure to explain your reasoning.
</para>
<para>
-For more information about <emphasis>override files</emphasis>, see
+For more information about <literal>override files</literal>, see
<citerefentry> <refentrytitle>dpkg-scanpackages</refentrytitle>
<manvolnum>1</manvolnum> </citerefentry> and <ulink
url="&url-bts-devel;#maintincorrect"></ulink>.
</para>
<para>
Once you've dealt with a bug report (e.g. fixed it), mark it as
-<emphasis>done</emphasis> (close it) by sending an explanation message to
+<literal>done</literal> (close it) by sending an explanation message to
<email>123-done@&bugs-host;</email>. If you're fixing a bug by changing
and uploading the package, you can automate bug closing as described in <xref
linkend="upload-bugfix"/> .
If the bug is real but it's caused by another package, just reassign the bug to
the right package. If you don't know which package it should be reassigned to,
you should ask for help on <link linkend="irc-channels">IRC</link> or
-on &email-debian-devel;. Please make sure that the
-maintainer(s) of the package the bug is reassigned to know why you reassigned
-it.
+on &email-debian-devel;. Please inform the maintainer(s) of the package
+you reassign the bug to, for example by Cc:ing the message that does the
+reassign to <email>packagename@packages.debian.org</email> and explaining
+your reasons in that mail. Please note that a simple reassignment is
+<emphasis>not</emphasis> e-mailed to the maintainers of the package
+being reassigned to, so they won't know about it until they look at
+a bug overview for their packages.
</para>
<para>
+If the bug affects the operation of your package, please consider
+cloning the bug and reassigning the clone to the package that really
+causes the behavior. Otherwise, the bug will not be shown in your
+package's bug list, possibly causing users to report the same bug over
+and over again. You should block "your" bug with the reassigned, cloned
+bug to document the relationship.
+</para>
+</listitem>
+<listitem>
+<para>
Sometimes you also have to adjust the severity of the bug so that it matches
our definition of the severity. That's because people tend to inflate the
severity of bugs to make sure their bugs are fixed quickly. Some bugs may even
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-Once a corrected package is available in the <emphasis>unstable</emphasis>
-distribution, you can close the bug. This can be done automatically, read
-<xref linkend="upload-bugfix"/> .
+Once a corrected package is available in the archive, the bug should be
+closed indicating the version in which it was fixed. This can be done
+automatically, read <xref linkend="upload-bugfix"/>.
</para>
</listitem>
</orderedlist>
The Debian Security Team exists to coordinate this activity, keeping track of
outstanding security problems, helping maintainers with security problems or
fixing them themselves, sending security advisories, and maintaining
-security.debian.org.
+<literal>security.debian.org</literal>.
</para>
<!-- information about the security database goes here once it's ready -->
<!-- (mdz) -->
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 stable; the security
-team will do that. Useful information includes, for example:
+role="strong">DO NOT UPLOAD</emphasis> any packages for <literal>stable</literal>;
+ the security team will do that. Useful information includes, for example:
</para>
<itemizedlist>
<listitem>
<para>
Which versions of the package are known to be affected by the bug. Check each
-version that is present in a supported Debian release, as well as testing and
-unstable.
+version that is present in a supported Debian release, as well as
+<literal>testing</literal> and <literal>unstable</literal>.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
be sure to mention this fact.
</para>
<para>
-Please note that if secrecy is needed you may not upload a fix to unstable (or
+Please note that if secrecy is needed you may not upload a fix to
+<literal>unstable</literal> (or
anywhere else, such as a public CVS repository). It is not sufficient to
obfuscate the details of the change, as the code itself is public, and can (and
will) be examined by the general public.
<title>Security Advisories</title>
<para>
Security advisories are only issued for the current, released stable
-distribution, and <emphasis>not</emphasis> for testing or unstable. When
-released, advisories are sent to the
+distribution, and <emphasis>not</emphasis> for <literal>testing</literal>
+or <literal>unstable</literal>. When released, advisories are sent to the
&email-debian-security-announce; mailing list and posted on
<ulink url="&url-debian-security-advisories;">the security web
page</ulink>. Security advisories are written and posted by the security team.
<listitem>
<para>
Target the right distribution in your <filename>debian/changelog</filename>.
-For stable this is <literal>stable-security</literal> and for testing this is
-<literal>testing-security</literal>, and for the previous stable release, this
-is <literal>oldstable-security</literal>. Do not target
-<replaceable>distribution</replaceable>-proposed-updates or
+For <literal>stable</literal> this is <literal>stable-security</literal> and
+for testing this is <literal>testing-security</literal>, and for the previous
+stable release, this is <literal>oldstable-security</literal>. Do not target
+<replaceable>distribution</replaceable><literal>-proposed-updates</literal> or
<literal>stable</literal>!
</para>
</listitem>
Make descriptive, meaningful changelog entries. Others will rely on them to
determine whether a particular bug was fixed. Always include an external
reference, preferably a CVE identifier, so that it can be cross-referenced.
-Include the same information in the changelog for unstable, so that it is clear
+Include the same information in the changelog for <literal>unstable</literal>,
+so that it is clear
that the same bug was fixed, as this is very helpful when verifying that the
bug is fixed in the next stable release. If a CVE identifier has not yet been
assigned, the security team will request one so that it can be included in the
package, but less than package versions in later distributions. If in doubt,
test it with <literal>dpkg --compare-versions</literal>. Be careful not to
re-use a version number that you have already used for a previous upload. For
-<emphasis>testing</emphasis>, there must be a higher version in
-<emphasis>unstable</emphasis>. If there is none yet (for example, if
-<emphasis>testing</emphasis> and <emphasis>unstable</emphasis> have the same
-version) you must upload a new version to unstable first.
+<literal>testing</literal>, there must be a higher version in
+<literal>unstable</literal>. If there is none yet (for example, if
+<literal>testing</literal> and <literal>unstable</literal> have the same
+version) you must upload a new version to <literal>unstable</literal> first.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-Unless the upstream source has been uploaded to security.debian.org before (by
-a previous security update), build the upload with full upstream source
-(<literal>dpkg-buildpackage -sa</literal>). If there has been a previous
-upload to security.debian.org with the same upstream version, you may upload
-without upstream source (<literal>dpkg-buildpackage -sd</literal>).
+Unless the upstream source has been uploaded to <literal>security.debian.org
+</literal> before (by a previous security update), build the upload with full
+upstream source (<literal>dpkg-buildpackage -sa</literal>). If there has been
+a previous upload to <literal>security.debian.org</literal> with the same
+upstream version, you may upload without upstream source (<literal>
+dpkg-buildpackage -sd</literal>).
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<title>Uploading the fixed package</title>
<para>
Do <emphasis role="strong">NOT</emphasis> upload a package to the security
-upload queue (oldstable-security, stable-security, etc.) without prior
-authorization from the security team. If the package does not exactly meet the
-team's requirements, it will cause many problems and delays in dealing with the
-unwanted upload.
+upload queue (<literal>oldstable-security</literal>, <literal>stable-security
+</literal>, etc.) without prior authorization from the security team. If the
+package does not exactly meet the team's requirements, it will cause many
+problems and delays in dealing with the unwanted upload.
</para>
<para>
-Do <emphasis role="strong">NOT</emphasis> upload your fix to proposed-updates
-without coordinating with the security team. Packages from security.debian.org
-will be copied into the proposed-updates directory automatically. If a package
+Do <emphasis role="strong">NOT</emphasis> upload your fix to <literal>
+proposed-updates</literal> without coordinating with the security team.
+Packages from <literal>security.debian.org</literal> will be copied into
+the <literal>proposed-updates</literal> directory automatically. If a package
with the same or a higher version number is already installed into the archive,
the security update will be rejected by the archive system. That way, the
stable distribution will end up without a security update for this package
</para>
<para>
If a member of the security team accepts a package, it will be installed on
-security.debian.org as well as proposed for the proper
-<replaceable>distribution</replaceable>-proposed-updates on ftp-master.
+<literal>security.debian.org</literal> as well as proposed for the proper
+<replaceable>distribution</replaceable><literal>-proposed-updates</literal>
+on <literal>&ftp-master-host;</literal>.
</para>
</section>
understand what happened.
</para>
<para>
-If, on the other hand, you need to change the <emphasis>subsection</emphasis>
+If, on the other hand, you need to change the <literal>subsection</literal>
of one of your packages (e.g., ``devel'', ``admin''), the procedure is slightly
different. Correct the subsection as found in the control file of the package,
and re-upload that. Also, you'll need to get the override file updated, as
If for some reason you want to completely remove a package (say, if it is an
old compatibility library which is no longer required), you need to file a bug
against <literal>ftp.debian.org</literal> asking that the package be removed;
-as all bugs, this bug should normally have normal severity. Make sure you
-indicate which distribution the package should be removed from. Normally, you
-can only have packages removed from <emphasis>unstable</emphasis> and
-<emphasis>experimental</emphasis>. Packages are not removed from
-<emphasis>testing</emphasis> directly. Rather, they will be removed
+as all bugs, this bug should normally have normal severity.
+The bug title should be in the form <literal>RM: <replaceable>package
+</replaceable> <replaceable>[architecture list]</replaceable> --
+<replaceable>reason</replaceable></literal>, where <replaceable>package</replaceable>
+is the package to be removed and <replaceable>reason</replaceable> is a
+short summary of the reason for the removal request.
+<replaceable>[architecture list]</replaceable> is optional and only needed
+if the removal request only applies to some architectures, not all. Note
+that the <command>reportbug</command> will create a title conforming
+to these rules when you use it to report a bug against the <literal>
+ftp.debian.org</literal> pseudo-package.
+</para>
+
+<para>
+If you want to remove a package you maintain, you should note this in
+the bug title by prepending <literal>ROM</literal> (Request Of Maintainer).
+There are several other standard acronyms used in the reasoning for a package
+removal, see <ulink url="http://&ftp-master-host;/removals.html"></ulink>
+for a complete list. That page also provides a convenient overview of
+pending removal requests.
+</para>
+
+<para>
+Note that removals can only be done for the <literal>unstable
+</literal>, <literal>experimental</literal> and <literal>stable
+</literal> distribution. Packages are not removed from
+<literal>testing</literal> directly. Rather, they will be removed
automatically after the package has been removed from
-<emphasis>unstable</emphasis> and no package in <emphasis>testing</emphasis>
-depends on it.
+<literal>unstable</literal> and no package in <literal>testing
+</literal> depends on it.
</para>
<para>
There is one exception when an explicit removal request is not necessary: If a
<para>
Usually you only ask for the removal of a package maintained by yourself. If
you want to remove another package, you have to get the approval of its
-maintainer.
+maintainer. Should the package be orphaned and thus have no maintainer,
+you should first discuss the removal request on &email-debian-qa;. If
+there is a consensus that the package should be removed, you should
+reassign and retitle the <literal>O:</literal> bug filed against the
+<literal>wnpp</literal> package instead of filing a new bug as
+removal request.
</para>
<para>
Further information relating to these and other package removal related topics
showpkg <replaceable>package</replaceable></literal>, the program will show
details for <replaceable>package</replaceable>, including reverse depends.
Other useful programs include <literal>apt-cache rdepends</literal>,
-<command>apt-rdepends</command> and <command>grep-dctrl</command>. Removal of
+<command>apt-rdepends</command>, <command>build-rdeps</command> (in the
+<systemitem role="package">devscripts</systemitem> package) and
+<command>grep-dctrl</command>. Removal of
orphaned packages is discussed on &email-debian-qa;.
</para>
<para>
incoming system, this is no longer possible. Instead, you have to upload a new
revision of your package with a higher version than the package you want to
replace. Both versions will be installed in the archive but only the higher
-version will actually be available in <emphasis>unstable</emphasis> since the
+version will actually be available in <literal>unstable</literal> since the
previous version will immediately be replaced by the higher. However, if you
do proper testing of your packages, the need to replace a package should not
occur too often anyway.
<section id="s5.9.3">
<title>Replacing or renaming packages</title>
<para>
-When you make a mistake naming your package, you should follow a two-step
-process to rename it. First, set your <filename>debian/control</filename> file
-to replace and conflict with the obsolete name of the package (see the <ulink
-url="&url-debian-policy;">Debian Policy Manual</ulink> for
-details). Once you've uploaded the package and the package has moved into the
-archive, file a bug against <literal>ftp.debian.org</literal> asking to remove
-the package with the obsolete name. Do not forget to properly reassign the
-package's bugs at the same time.
+When the upstream maintainers for one of your packages chose to
+rename their software (or you made a mistake naming your package),
+you should follow a two-step process to rename it. In the first
+step, change the <filename>debian/control</filename> file to
+reflect the new name and to replace, provide and conflict with the
+obsolete package name (see the <ulink url="&url-debian-policy;">
+Debian Policy Manual</ulink> for details). Please note that you
+should only add a <literal>Provides</literal> relation if all
+packages depending on the obsolete package name continue to work
+after the renaming. Once you've uploaded the package and the package
+has moved into the archive, file a bug against <literal>
+ftp.debian.org</literal> asking to remove the package with the
+obsolete name (see <xref linkend="removing-pkgs"/>). Do not forget
+to properly reassign the package's bugs at the same time.
</para>
<para>
At other times, you may make a mistake in constructing your package and wish to
<replaceable>package</replaceable> -- <replaceable>short
description</replaceable></literal> indicating that the package is now
orphaned. The severity of the bug should be set to
-<emphasis>normal</emphasis>; if the package has a priority of standard or
+<literal>normal</literal>; if the package has a priority of standard or
higher, it should be set to important. If you feel it's necessary, send a copy
to &email-debian-devel; by putting the address in the
X-Debbugs-CC: header of the message (no, don't use CC:, because that way the
role="package">wnpp</systemitem> and title it <literal>RFA:
<replaceable>package</replaceable> -- <replaceable>short
description</replaceable></literal>. <literal>RFA</literal> stands for
-<emphasis>Request For Adoption</emphasis>.
+<literal>Request For Adoption</literal>.
</para>
<para>
More information is on the <ulink url="&url-wnpp;">WNPP
Porting is the act of building Debian packages for architectures that are
different from the original architecture of the package maintainer's binary
package. It is a unique and essential activity. In fact, porters do most of
-the actual compiling of Debian packages. For instance, for a single
-<emphasis>i386</emphasis> binary package, there must be a recompile for each
-architecture, which amounts to &number-of-arches; more builds.
+the actual compiling of Debian packages. For instance, when a maintainer
+uploads a (portable) source packages with binaries for the <literal>i386
+</literal> architecture, it will be built for each of the other architectures,
+amounting to &number-of-arches; more builds.
</para>
<section id="kind-to-porters">
<title>Being kind to porters</title>
<literal>Build-Depends-Indep</literal> settings in
<filename>debian/control</filename> are set properly. The best way to validate
this is to use the <systemitem role="package">debootstrap</systemitem> package
-to create an unstable chroot environment (see <xref linkend="debootstrap"/> ).
+to create an <literal>unstable</literal> chroot environment (see <xref
+linkend="debootstrap"/> ).
Within that chrooted environment, install the <systemitem
role="package">build-essential</systemitem> package and any package
dependencies mentioned in <literal>Build-Depends</literal> and/or
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-Don't set architecture to a value other than ``all'' or ``any'' unless you
-really mean it. In too many cases, maintainers don't follow the instructions
-in the <ulink url="&url-debian-policy;">Debian Policy
-Manual</ulink>. Setting your architecture to ``i386'' is usually incorrect.
+Don't set architecture to a value other than <literal>all</literal> or
+<literal>any</literal> unless you really mean it. In too many cases,
+maintainers don't follow the instructions in the <ulink
+url="&url-debian-policy;">Debian Policy Manual</ulink>. Setting your
+architecture to only one architecture (such as <literal>i386</literal>
+or <literal>amd64</literal>) is usually incorrect.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
Make sure you don't ship your source package with the
<filename>debian/files</filename> or <filename>debian/substvars</filename>
-files. They should be removed by the `clean' target of
+files. They should be removed by the <literal>clean</literal> target of
<filename>debian/rules</filename>.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
Don't depend on the package you're building being installed already (a sub-case
-of the above issue).
+of the above issue). There are, of course, exceptions to this rule, but be
+aware that any case like this needs manual bootstrapping and cannot be done
+by automated package builders.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-Make sure your debian/rules contains separate ``binary-arch'' and
-``binary-indep'' targets, as the Debian Policy Manual requires. Make sure that
-both targets work independently, that is, that you can call the target without
-having called the other before. To test this, try to run
-<literal>dpkg-buildpackage -B</literal>.
+Make sure your debian/rules contains separate <literal>binary-arch</literal>
+and <literal>binary-indep</literal> targets, as the Debian Policy Manual
+requires. Make sure that both targets work independently, that is, that you
+can call the target without having called the other before. To test this,
+try to run <command>dpkg-buildpackage -B</command>.
</para>
</listitem>
</orderedlist>
-m<replaceable>porter-email</replaceable></literal>. Of course, set
<replaceable>porter-email</replaceable> to your email address. This will do a
binary-only build of only the architecture-dependent portions of the package,
-using the `binary-arch' target in <filename>debian/rules</filename>.
+using the <literal>binary-arch</literal> target in <filename>debian/rules
+</filename>.
</para>
<para>
If you are working on a Debian machine for your porting efforts and you need to
bad compiler, ...). Then you may just need to recompile it in an updated
environment. However, you have to bump the version number in this case, so
that the old bad package can be replaced in the Debian archive
-(<command>katie</command> refuses to install new packages if they don't have a
+(<command>dak</command> refuses to install new packages if they don't have a
version number greater than the currently available one).
</para>
<para>
You have to make sure that your binary-only NMU doesn't render the package
uninstallable. This could happen when a source package generates
-arch-dependent and arch-independent packages that depend on each other via
-$(Source-Version).
+arch-dependent and arch-independent packages that have inter-dependencies
+generated using dpkg's substitution variable <literal>$(Source-Version)
+</literal>.
</para>
<para>
Despite the required modification of the changelog, these are called
</para>
<para>
The ``magic'' for a recompilation-only NMU is triggered by using a suffix
-appended to the package version number, following the form b<number>.
+appended to the package version number, following the form <literal>
+b<replaceable>number</replaceable></literal>.
For instance, if the latest version you are recompiling against was version
-``2.9-3'', your NMU should carry a version of ``2.9-3+b1''. If the latest
-version was ``3.4+b1'' (i.e, a native package with a previous recompilation
-NMU), your NMU should have a version number of ``3.4+b2''. <footnote><para> In
-the past, such NMUs used the third-level number on the Debian part of the
-revision to denote their recompilation-only status; however, this syntax was
-ambiguous with native packages and did not allow proper ordering of
-recompile-only NMUs, source NMUs, and security NMUs on the same package, and
-has therefore been abandoned in favor of this new syntax. </para> </footnote>
+<literal>2.9-3</literal>, your binary-only NMU should carry a version of
+<literal>2.9-3+b1</literal>. If the latest version was <literal>3.4+b1
+</literal> (i.e, a native package with a previous recompilation NMU), your
+binary-only NMU should have a version number of <literal>3.4+b2</literal>.
+<footnote><para> In the past, such NMUs used the third-level number on the
+Debian part of the revision to denote their recompilation-only status;
+however, this syntax was ambiguous with native packages and did not allow
+proper ordering of recompile-only NMUs, source NMUs, and security NMUs on
+the same package, and has therefore been abandoned in favor of this new syntax.
+</para> </footnote>
</para>
<para>
Similar to initial porter uploads, the correct way of invoking
release managers decide and announce which architectures are candidates.
</para>
<para>
-If you are a porter doing an NMU for `unstable', the above guidelines for
-porting should be followed, with two variations. Firstly, the acceptable
-waiting period — the time between when the bug is submitted to the BTS and
-when it is OK to do an NMU — is seven days for porters working on the
-unstable distribution. This period can be shortened if the problem is critical
-and imposes hardship on the porting effort, at the discretion of the porter
-group. (Remember, none of this is Policy, just mutually agreed upon
-guidelines.) For uploads to stable or testing, please coordinate with the
-appropriate release team first.
+If you are a porter doing an NMU for <literal>unstable</literal>, the above
+guidelines for porting should be followed, with two variations. Firstly, the
+acceptable waiting period — the time between when the bug is submitted to
+the BTS and when it is OK to do an NMU — is seven days for porters working
+on the <literal>unstable</literal> distribution. This period can be shortened
+if the problem is critical and imposes hardship on the porting effort, at the
+discretion of the porter group. (Remember, none of this is Policy, just
+mutually agreed upon guidelines.) For uploads to <literal>stable</literal> or
+<literal>testing </literal>, please coordinate with the appropriate release
+team first.
</para>
<para>
Secondly, porters doing source NMUs should make sure that the bug they submit
-to the BTS should be of severity `serious' or greater. This ensures that a
-single source package can be used to compile every supported Debian
-architecture by release time. It is very important that we have one version of
-the binary and source package for all architecture in order to comply with many
-licenses.
+to the BTS should be of severity <literal>serious</literal> or greater. This
+ensures that a single source package can be used to compile every supported
+Debian architecture by release time. It is very important that we have one
+version of the binary and source package for all architectures in order to
+comply with many licenses.
</para>
<para>
Porters should try to avoid patches which simply kludge around bugs in the
</para>
</section>
-<section id="buildd">
-<title><systemitem role="package">buildd</systemitem></title>
+<section id="wanna-build">
+<title><systemitem role="package">wanna-build</systemitem></title>
<para>
-The <systemitem role="package">buildd</systemitem> system is used as a
+The <systemitem role="package">wanna-build</systemitem> system is used as a
distributed, client-server build distribution system. It is usually used in
-conjunction with <emphasis>auto-builders</emphasis>, which are ``slave'' hosts
-which simply check out and attempt to auto-build packages which need to be
-ported. There is also an email interface to the system, which allows porters
-to ``check out'' a source package (usually one which cannot yet be auto-built)
-and work on it.
+conjunction with build daemons running the <systemitem role="package">buildd
+</systemitem> program. <literal>Build daemons</literal> are ``slave'' hosts
+which contact the central <systemitem role="package"> wanna-build</systemitem>
+system to receive a list of packages that need to be built.
</para>
<para>
-<systemitem role="package">buildd</systemitem> is not yet available as a
-package; however, most porting efforts are either using it currently or
-planning to use it in the near future. The actual automated builder is
-packaged as <systemitem role="package">sbuild</systemitem>, see its description
-in <xref linkend="sbuild"/> . The complete <systemitem
-role="package">buildd</systemitem> system also collects a number of as yet
-unpackaged components which are currently very useful and in use continually,
-such as <command>andrea</command> and <command>wanna-build</command>.
+<systemitem role="package">wanna-build</systemitem> is not yet available as a
+package; however, all Debian porting efforts are using it for automated
+package building. The tool used to do the actual package builds, <systemitem
+role="package">sbuild</systemitem> is available as a package, see its
+description in <xref linkend="sbuild"/> . Please note that the packaged
+version is not the same as the one used on build daemons, but it is close
+enough to reproduce problems.
</para>
<para>
-Some of the data produced by <systemitem role="package">buildd</systemitem>
-which is generally useful to porters is available on the web at <ulink
-url="&url-buildd;"></ulink>. This data includes nightly updated
-information from <command>andrea</command> (source dependencies) and
-<systemitem role="package">quinn-diff</systemitem> (packages needing
-recompilation).
+Most of the data produced by <systemitem role="package">wanna-build
+</systemitem> which is generally useful to porters is available on the
+web at <ulink url="&url-buildd;"></ulink>. This data includes nightly
+updated statistics, queueing information and logs for build attempts.
</para>
<para>
We are quite proud of this system, since it has so many possible uses.
</para>
<para>
The buildds admins of each arch can be contacted at the mail address
-$arch@buildd.debian.org.
+<literal><replaceable>arch</replaceable>@buildd.debian.org</literal>.
</para>
</section>
Some packages still have issues with building and/or working on some of the
architectures supported by Debian, and cannot be ported at all, or not within a
reasonable amount of time. An example is a package that is SVGA-specific (only
-i386), or uses other hardware-specific features not supported on all
-architectures.
+available for <literal>i386</literal> and <literal>amd64</literal>), or uses
+other hardware-specific features not supported on all architectures.
</para>
<para>
In order to prevent broken packages from being uploaded to the archive, and
</para>
<para>
Additionally, if you believe the list of supported architectures is pretty
-constant, you should change 'any' to a list of supported architectures in
-debian/control. This way, the build will fail also, and indicate this to a
-human reader without actually trying.
+constant, you should change <literal>any</literal> to a list of supported
+architectures in <filename>debian/control</filename>. This way, the build will
+fail also, and indicate this to a human reader without actually trying.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
This section handles only source NMUs, i.e. NMUs which upload a new version of
the package. For binary-only NMUs by porters or QA members, please see <xref
linkend="binary-only-nmu"/> . If a buildd builds and uploads a package, that
-too is strictly speaking a binary NMU. See <xref linkend="buildd"/> for some
-more information.
+too is strictly speaking a binary NMU. See <xref linkend="wanna-build"/> for
+some more information.
</para>
<para>
The main reason why NMUs are done is when a developer needs to fix another
</para>
<para>
A NMU should follow all conventions, written down in this section. For an
-upload to testing or unstable, this order of steps is recommended:
+upload to <literal>testing</literal> or <literal>unstable</literal>, this
+order of steps is recommended:
</para>
<itemizedlist>
<listitem>
linkend="qa-bsp"/> for details.
</para>
<para>
-For the testing distribution, the rules may be changed by the release managers.
-Please take additional care, and acknowledge that the usual way for a package
-to enter testing is through unstable.
+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>.
</para>
<para>
For the stable distribution, please take extra care. Of course, the release
<replaceable>debian-revision</replaceable> numbering at `1'.
</para>
<para>
-If you upload a package to testing or stable, sometimes, you need to fork the
-version number tree. For this, version numbers like 1.1-3sarge0.1 could be
-used.
+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.
</para>
</section>
throughout this document. Both binary-only and source NMUs are similar, since
they involve an upload of a package by a developer who is not the official
maintainer of that package. That is why it's a
-<emphasis>non-maintainer</emphasis> upload.
+<literal>non-maintainer</literal> upload.
</para>
<para>
A source NMU is an upload of a package by a developer who is not the official
Generally there is a primary maintainer and one or more co-maintainers. The
primary maintainer is the person whose name is listed in the
<literal>Maintainer</literal> field of the <filename>debian/control</filename>
-file. Co-maintainers are all the other maintainers.
+file. Co-maintainers are all the other maintainers,
+usually listed in the <literal>Uploaders</literal> field of the
+<filename>debian/control</filename> file.
</para>
<para>
In its most basic form, the process of adding a new co-maintainer is quite
<listitem>
<para>
Add the co-maintainer's correct maintainer name and address to the
-<literal>Uploaders</literal> field in the global part of the
+<literal>Uploaders</literal> field in the first paragraph of the
<filename>debian/control</filename> file.
</para>
<screen>
<section id="testing-basics">
<title>Basics</title>
<para>
-Packages are usually installed into the `testing' distribution after they have
-undergone some degree of testing in unstable.
+Packages are usually installed into the <literal>testing</literal> distribution
+after they have undergone some degree of <literal>testing</literal> in
+<literal>unstable</literal>.
</para>
<para>
They must be in sync on all architectures and mustn't have dependencies that
make them uninstallable; they also have to have generally no known
-release-critical bugs at the time they're installed into testing. This way,
-`testing' should always be close to being a release candidate. Please see
-below for details.
+release-critical bugs at the time they're installed into <literal>testing
+</literal>. This way, <literal>testing</literal> should always be close to
+being a release candidate. Please see below for details.
</para>
</section>
<section id="testing-unstable">
<title>Updates from unstable</title>
<para>
-The scripts that update the <emphasis>testing</emphasis> distribution are run
-each day after the installation of the updated packages; these scripts are
-called <emphasis>britney</emphasis>. They generate the
-<filename>Packages</filename> files for the <emphasis>testing</emphasis>
+The scripts that update the <literal>testing</literal> distribution are run
+twice each day, right after the installation of the updated packages; these
+scripts are called <literal>britney</literal>. They generate the
+<filename>Packages</filename> files for the <literal>testing</literal>
distribution, but they do so in an intelligent manner; they try to avoid any
inconsistency and to use only non-buggy packages.
</para>
<para>
-The inclusion of a package from <emphasis>unstable</emphasis> is conditional on
+The inclusion of a package from <literal>unstable</literal> is conditional on
the following:
</para>
<itemizedlist>
<listitem>
<para>
-The package must have been available in <emphasis>unstable</emphasis> for 2, 5
+The package must have been available in <literal>unstable</literal> for 2, 5
or 10 days, depending on the urgency (high, medium or low). Please note that
the urgency is sticky, meaning that the highest urgency uploaded since the
-previous testing transition is taken into account. Those delays may be doubled
-during a freeze, or testing transitions may be switched off altogether;
+previous <literal>testing</literal> transition is taken into account. Those
+delays may be doubled during a freeze, or <literal>testing</literal>
+transitions may be switched off altogether;
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-It must have the same number or fewer release-critical bugs than the version
-currently available in <emphasis>testing</emphasis>;
+It must not have new release-critical bugs (RC bugs affecting the version
+available in <literal>unstable</literal>, but not affecting the version in
+<literal>testing</literal>);
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
It must be available on all architectures on which it has previously been built
-in unstable. <xref linkend="madison"/> may be of interest to check that
-information;
+in <literal>unstable</literal>. <xref linkend="dak ls"/> may be of interest
+to check that information;
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
It must not break any dependency of a package which is already available in
-<emphasis>testing</emphasis>;
+<literal>testing</literal>;
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
The packages on which it depends must either be available in
-<emphasis>testing</emphasis> or they must be accepted into
-<emphasis>testing</emphasis> at the same time (and they will be if they fulfill
+<literal>testing</literal> or they must be accepted into
+<literal>testing</literal> at the same time (and they will be if they fulfill
all the necessary criteria);
</para>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>
<para>
-To find out whether a package is progressing into testing or not, see the
-
testing script output on the <ulink
+To find out whether a package is progressing into <literal>testing</literal>
+
or not, see the <literal>testing</literal> script output on the <ulink
url="&url-testing-maint;">web page of the testing
distribution</ulink>, or use the program <command>grep-excuses</command> which
is in the <systemitem role="package">devscripts</systemitem> package. This
utility can easily be used in a <citerefentry>
<refentrytitle>crontab</refentrytitle> <manvolnum>5</manvolnum> </citerefentry>
to keep yourself informed of the progression of your packages into
-<emphasis>testing</emphasis>.
+<literal>testing</literal>.
</para>
<para>
The <filename>update_excuses</filename> file does not always give the precise
more information about the usual problems which may be causing such troubles.
</para>
<para>
-Sometimes, some packages never enter <emphasis>testing</emphasis> because the
+Sometimes, some packages never enter <literal>testing</literal> because the
set of inter-relationship is too complicated and cannot be sorted out by the
scripts. See below for details.
</para>
<para>
Some further dependency analysis is shown on <ulink
-url="http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/"></ulink> — but be warned, this page also
+url="http://release.debian.org/migration/"></ulink> — but be warned, this page also
shows build dependencies which are not considered by britney.
</para>
<section id="outdated">
<title>out-of-date</title>
<para>
<!-- FIXME: better rename this file than document rampant professionalism? -->
-For the testing migration script, outdated means: There are different versions
-in unstable for the release architectures (except for the architectures in
-fuckedarches; fuckedarches is a list of architectures that don't keep up (in
-update_out.py), but currently, it's empty). outdated has nothing whatsoever to
-do with the architectures this package has in testing.
+For the <literal>testing</literal> migration script, outdated means: There are
+different versions in <literal>unstable</literal> for the release architectures
+(except for the architectures in fuckedarches; fuckedarches is a list of
+architectures that don't keep up (in <filename>update_out.py</filename>), but
+currently, it's empty). outdated has nothing whatsoever to do with the
+architectures this package has in <literal>testing</literal>.
</para>
<para>
Consider this example:
</tgroup>
</informaltable>
<para>
-The package is out of date on alpha in unstable, and will not go to testing.
-And removing foo from testing would not help at all, the package is still out
-of date on alpha, and will not propagate to testing.
+The package is out of date on alpha in <literal>unstable</literal>, and will
+not go to <literal>testing</literal>. Removing the package would not help at all, the
+package is still out of date on <literal>alpha</literal>, and will not
+propagate to testing.
</para>
<para>
-However, if ftp-master removes a package in unstable (here on arm):
+However, if ftp-master removes a package in <literal>unstable</literal> (here
+on <literal>arm</literal>):
</para>
<informaltable pgwide="1">
<tgroup cols="4">
</informaltable>
<para>
In this case, the package is up to date on all release architectures in
-unstable (and the extra hurd-i386 doesn't matter, as it's not a release
-architecture).
+<literal>unstable</literal> (and the extra <literal>hurd-i386</literal>
+doesn't matter, as it's not a release architecture).
</para>
<para>
Sometimes, the question is raised if it is possible to allow packages in that
<para>
Sometimes, a package is removed to allow another package in: This happens only
to allow <emphasis>another</emphasis> package to go in if it's ready in every
-other sense. Suppose e.g. that <emphasis>a</emphasis> cannot be installed
-with the new version of <emphasis>b</emphasis>; then <emphasis>a</emphasis> may
-be removed to allow <emphasis>b</emphasis> in.
+other sense. Suppose e.g. that <literal>a</literal> cannot be installed
+with the new version of <literal>b</literal>; then <literal>a</literal> may
+be removed to allow <literal>b</literal> in.
</para>
<para>
-Of course, there is another reason to remove a package from testing: It's just
-too buggy (and having a single RC-bug is enough to be in this state).
+Of course, there is another reason to remove a package from <literal>testing
+</literal>: It's just too buggy (and having a single RC-bug is enough to be
+in this state).
</para>
<para>
-Furthermore, if a package has been removed from unstable, and no package in
-testing depends on it any more, then it will automatically be removed.
+Furthermore, if a package has been removed from <literal>unstable</literal>,
+and no package in <literal>testing</literal> depends on it any more, then it
+will automatically be removed.
</para>
</section>
<title>circular dependencies</title>
<para>
A situation which is not handled very well by britney is if package
-<emphasis>a</emphasis> depends on the new version of package
-<emphasis>b</emphasis>, and vice versa.
+<literal>a</literal> depends on the new version of package
+<literal>b</literal>, and vice versa.
</para>
<para>
An example of this is:
</tgroup>
</informaltable>
<para>
-Neither package <emphasis>a</emphasis> nor package <emphasis>b</emphasis> is
+Neither package <literal>a</literal> nor package <literal>b</literal> is
considered for update.
</para>
<para>
<section id="s5.13.2.4">
<title>influence of package in testing</title>
<para>
-Generally, there is nothing that the status of a package in testing means for
-transition of the next version from unstable to testing, with two exceptions:
+Generally, there is nothing that the status of a package in <literal>testing
+</literal> means for transition of the next version from <literal>unstable
+</literal> to <literal>testing</literal>, with two exceptions:
If the RC-bugginess of the package goes down, it may go in even if it is still
-RC-buggy. The second exception is if the version of the package in testing is
-out of sync on the different arches: Then any arch might just upgrade to the
-version of the source package; however, this can happen only if the package was
-previously forced through, the arch is in fuckedarches, or there was no binary
-package of that arch present in unstable at all during the testing migration.
+RC-buggy. The second exception is if the version of the package in <literal>
+testing</literal> is out of sync on the different arches: Then any arch might
+just upgrade to the version of the source package; however, this can happen
+only if the package was previously forced through, the arch is in fuckedarches,
+or there was no binary package of that arch present in <literal>unstable
+</literal> at all during the <literal>testing</literal> migration.
</para>
<para>
-In summary this means: The only influence that a package being in testing has
-on a new version of the same package is that the new version might go in
-easier.
+In summary this means: The only influence that a package being in <literal>
+testing</literal> has on a new version of the same package is that the new
+version might go in easier.
</para>
</section>
is not described here. If you're interested in that, please peruse the code.)
</para>
<para>
-Now, the more complex part happens: Britney tries to update testing with the
-valid candidates; first, each package alone, and then larger and even larger
-sets of packages together. Each try is accepted if testing is not more
-uninstallable after the update than before. (Before and after this part, some
-hints are processed; but as only release masters can hint, this is probably not
-so important for you.)
+Now, the more complex part happens: Britney tries to update <literal>testing
+</literal> with the valid candidates. For that, britney tries to add each
+valid candidate to the testing distribution. If the number of uninstallable
+packages in <literal>testing</literal> doesn't increase, the package is
+accepted. From that point on, the accepted package is considered to be part
+of <literal>testing</literal>, such that all subsequent installability
+tests include this package. Hints from the release team are processed
+before or after this main run, depending on the exact type.
</para>
<para>
If you want to see more details, you can look it up on
-merkel:/org/&ftp-debian-org;/testing/update_out/ (or there in
-~aba/testing/update_out to see a setup with a smaller packages file). Via web,
-it's at <ulink
+<filename>merkel:/org/&ftp-debian-org;/testing/update_out/</filename> (or
+in <filename>merkel:~aba/testing/update_out</filename> to see a setup with
+
a smaller packages file). Via web, it's at <ulink
url="http://&ftp-master-host;/testing/update_out_code/"></ulink>
</para>
<para>
<section id="t-p-u">
<title>Direct updates to testing</title>
<para>
-The testing distribution is fed with packages from unstable according to the
-rules explained above. However, in some cases, it is necessary to upload
-packages built only for testing. For that, you may want to upload to
-<emphasis>testing-proposed-updates</emphasis>.
+The <literal>testing</literal> distribution is fed with packages from
+<literal>unstable</literal> according to the rules explained above. However,
+in some cases, it is necessary to upload packages built only for <literal>
+testing</literal>. For that, you may want to upload to <literal>
+testing-proposed-updates</literal>.
</para>
<para>
Keep in mind that packages uploaded there are not automatically processed, they
give on &email-debian-devel-announce;.
</para>
<para>
-You should not upload to <emphasis>testing-proposed-updates</emphasis> when you
-can update your packages through <emphasis>unstable</emphasis>. If you can't
-(for example because you have a newer development version in unstable), you may
-use this facility, but it is recommended that you ask for authorization from
-the release manager first. Even if a package is frozen, updates through
-unstable are possible, if the upload via unstable does not pull in any new
-dependencies.
+You should not upload to <literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal> when you
+can update your packages through <literal>unstable</literal>. If you can't
+(for example because you have a newer development version in <literal>unstable
+</literal>), you may use this facility, but it is recommended that you ask for
+authorization from the release manager first. Even if a package is frozen,
+updates through <literal>unstable</literal> are possible, if the upload via
+<literal>unstable</literal> does not pull in any new dependencies.
</para>
<para>
-Version numbers are usually selected by adding the codename of the testing
-distribution and a running number, like 1.2sarge1 for the first upload through
-testing-proposed-updates of package version 1.2.
+Version numbers are usually selected by adding the codename of the
+<literal>testing</literal> distribution and a running number, like
+<literal>1.2sarge1</literal> for the first upload through
+<literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal> of package version
+<literal>1.2</literal>.
</para>
<para>
Please make sure you didn't miss any of these items in your upload:
<listitem>
<para>
Make sure that your package really needs to go through
-<emphasis>testing-proposed-updates</emphasis>, and can't go through unstable;
+<literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal>, and can't go through <literal>
+unstable</literal>;
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-Make sure that you've written <emphasis>testing</emphasis> or
-<emphasis>testing-proposed-updates</emphasis> into your target distribution;
+Make sure that you've written <literal>testing</literal> or
+<literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal> into your target distribution;
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
Make sure that you've built and tested your package in
-<emphasis>testing</emphasis>, not in <emphasis>unstable</emphasis>;
+<literal>testing</literal>, not in <literal>unstable</literal>;
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
Make sure that your version number is higher than the version in
-<emphasis>testing</emphasis> and <emphasis>testing-proposed-updates</emphasis>,
-and lower than in <emphasis>unstable</emphasis>;
+<literal>testing</literal> and <literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal>,
+and lower than in <literal>unstable</literal>;
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<title>What are release-critical bugs, and how do they get counted?</title>
<para>
All bugs of some higher severities are by default considered release-critical;
-currently, these are critical, grave, and serious bugs.
+currently, these are <literal>critical</literal>, <literal>grave</literal> and
+<literal>serious</literal> bugs.
</para>
<para>
Such bugs are presumed to have an impact on the chances that the package will
-be released with the stable release of Debian: in general, if a package has
-open release-critical bugs filed on it, it won't get into testing, and
-consequently won't be released in stable.
-</para>
-<para>
-The unstable bug count are all release-critical bugs without either any
-release-tag (such as potato, woody) or with release-tag sid; also, only if they
-are neither fixed nor set to sarge-ignore. The testing bug count for a package
-is considered to be roughly the bug count of unstable count at the last point
-when the testing version equalled the unstable version.
+be released with the <literal>stable</literal> release of Debian: in general,
+if a package has open release-critical bugs filed on it, it won't get into
+<literal>testing</literal>, and consequently won't be released in <literal>
+stable</literal>.
</para>
<para>
-This will change post-sarge, as soon as we have versions in the bug tracking
-system.
+The <literal>unstable</literal> bug count are all release-critical bugs which
+are marked to apply to <replaceable>package</replaceable>/<replaceable>version
+</replaceable> combinations that are available in unstable for a release
+architecture. The <literal>testing</literal> bug count is defined analogously.
</para>
</section>
<section id="s5.13.4.2">
-<title>How could installing a package into testing possibly break other packages?</title>
+<title>How could installing a package into <literal>testing</literal> possibly
+break other packages?</title>
<para>
The structure of the distribution archives is such that they can only contain
one version of a package; a package is defined by its name. So when the source
-package acmefoo is installed into testing, along with its binary packages
-acme-foo-bin, acme-bar-bin, libacme-foo1 and libacme-foo-dev, the old version
-is removed.
+package <literal>acmefoo</literal> is installed into <literal>testing</literal>,
+along with its binary packages <literal>acme-foo-bin</literal>, <literal>
+acme-bar-bin</literal>, <literal>libacme-foo1</literal> and <literal>
+libacme-foo-dev</literal>, the old version is removed.
</para>
<para>
However, the old version may have provided a binary package with an old soname
-of a library, such as libacme-foo0. Removing the old acmefoo will remove
-libacme-foo0, which will break any packages which depend on it.
+of a library, such as <literal>libacme-foo0</literal>. Removing the old
+<literal>acmefoo</literal> will remove <literal>libacme-foo0</literal>, which
+will break any packages which depend on it.
</para>
<para>
Evidently, this mainly affects packages which provide changing sets of binary
When the set of binary packages provided by a source package change in this
way, all the packages that depended on the old binaries will have to be updated
to depend on the new binaries instead. Because installing such a source
-package into testing breaks all the packages that depended on it in testing,
+package into <literal>testing</literal> breaks all the packages that depended on
+it in <literal>testing</literal>,
some care has to be taken now: all the depending packages must be updated and
ready to be installed themselves so that they won't be broken, and, once
everything is ready, manual intervention by the release manager or an assistant
</para>
<para>
If you are having problems with complicated groups of packages like this,
-contact debian-devel or debian-release for help.
+contact &email-debian-devel; or &email-debian-release; for help.
</para>
</section>
~ianmdlvl / developers-reference.git / blobdiff