X-Git-Url: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~ianmdlvl/git?p=developers-reference.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=developers-reference.sgml;h=cd1afddb347d697430027bdb87dc2786e2936cea;hp=5675f6d50eb4268e75ea5f2ee7b051a057e4173a;hb=8c24b8b229c9942ba4d27829d3a96ad68a6a7759;hpb=5c48745d389bebf455e1bbb66d34bb1e07f33f08 diff --git a/developers-reference.sgml b/developers-reference.sgml index 5675f6d..cd1afdd 100644 --- a/developers-reference.sgml +++ b/developers-reference.sgml @@ -2,8 +2,16 @@ %versiondata; - - + + %commondata; + + + + + ]> (DFSG) and with all other policy requirements as -described in the . The DFSG is our definition of ``free -software.'' Check out the Debian Policy Manual for details. -

-The packages which do not apply to the DFSG are placed in the -non-free section. These packages are not considered as part -of the Debian distribution, though we support their use, and we -provide infrastructure (such as our bug-tracking system and mailing -lists) for non-free software packages. +The main section of the Debian archive is what makes up the +official &debian-formal; distribution. The +main section is official because it fully complies with all +our guidelines. The other two sections do not, to different degrees; +as such, they are not officially part of +&debian-formal;. +

+Every package in the main section must fully comply with the (DFSG) and +with all other policy requirements as described in the . The DFSG is +our definition of ``free software.'' Check out the Debian Policy +Manual for details.

Packages in the contrib section have to comply with the DFSG, but may fail other requirements. For instance, they may depend on non-free packages.

-The contains a more exact definition of the three -sections. The above discussion is just an introduction. +Packages which do not apply to the DFSG are placed in the +non-free section. These packages are not considered as part +of the Debian distribution, though we support their use, and we +provide infrastructure (such as our bug-tracking system and mailing +lists) for non-free software packages. +

+The +contains a more exact definition of the three sections. The above +discussion is just an introduction.

The separation of the three sections at the top-level of the archive is important for all people who want to distribute Debian, either via @@ -626,7 +647,7 @@ commercial distribution, for example.

On the other hand, a CD-ROM vendor could easily check the individual package licenses of the packages in non-free and include as -many on the CD-ROMs as he's allowed. (Since this varies greatly from +many on the CD-ROMs as he's allowed to. (Since this varies greatly from vendor to vendor, this job can't be done by the Debian developers.) @@ -641,17 +662,21 @@ The Linux 2.0 kernel supports Intel x86, DEC Alpha, SPARC, Motorola 680x0 (like Atari, Amiga and Macintoshes), MIPS, and PowerPC. The Linux 2.2 kernel supports even more architectures, including ARM and UltraSPARC. Since Linux supports these platforms, Debian decided that -it should, too. Therefore, Debian has ports underway. In fact, we +it should, too. Therefore, Debian has ports underway; in fact, we also have ports underway to non-Linux kernel. Aside from i386 (our name for Intel x86), there is m68k, alpha, powerpc, sparc, hurd-i386, and arm, as of this writing. -

-Debian GNU/Linux 1.3 is only available as i386. Debian 2.0 +&debian-formal; 1.3 is only available as i386. Debian 2.0 shipped for i386 and m68k architectures. Debian 2.1 ships for the i386, m68k, alpha, and -sparc architectures. +sparc architectures. Debian 2.2 adds support for the +powerpc and arm architectures. +

+Information for developers or uses about the specific ports are +available at the . Subsections @@ -659,11 +684,15 @@ ships for the i386, m68k, alpha, and The sections main, contrib, and non-free are split into subsections to simplify the installation process and the maintainance of the archive. Subsections are not -formally defined, excepting perhaps the `base' subsection. -Subsections exist simply to simplify the organization and browsing of +formally defined, except perhaps the `base' subsection. +Subsections simply exist to simplify the organization and browsing of available packages. Please check the current Debian distribution to see which sections are available. - +

+Note however that with the introduction of package pools (see the top-level +pool/ directory), the subsections in the form of subdirectories +will eventually cease to exist. They will be kept in the packages' `Section' +header fields, though. Packages

@@ -684,40 +713,35 @@ the software). In this case, the .diff.gz contains the changes made by the Debian maintainer.

The .dsc lists all the files in the source package together -with checksums (md5sums) and some additional info about the package -(maintainer, version, etc.). +with checksums (md5sums) and some additional info about +the package (maintainer, version, etc.). Distribution directories

-The directory system described in the previous chapter, are themselves -contained within distribution directories. Every -distribution is contained in the dists directory in the -top-level of the Debian archive itself (the symlinks from the -top-level directory to the distributions themselves are for backwards -compatability and are deprecated). +The directory system described in the previous chapter is itself +contained within distribution directories. Each +distribution is actually contained in the pool directory in the +top-level of the Debian archive itself.

To summarize, the Debian archive has a root directory within an FTP server. For instance, at the mirror site, ftp.us.debian.org, the Debian archive itself is contained in /debian, which is a common location -(another is /pub/debian). -

-Within that archive root, the actual distributions are contained in -the dists directory. Here is an overview of the layout: +(another is /pub/debian).

- -archive root/dists/distribution/section/architecture/subsection/packages - +A distribution is comprised of Debian source and binary packages, and the +respective Sources and Packages index files, containing +the header information from all those packages. The former are kept in the +pool/ directory, while the latter are kept in the dists/ +directory of the archive (because of backwards compatibility). -Extrapolating from this layout, you know that to find the i386 base -packages for the distribution slink, you would look in -/debian/dists/slink/main/binary-i386/base/. - Stable, unstable, and sometimes frozen + Stable, testing, and unstable

-There is always a distribution called stable (residing in -dists/stable) and one called unstable (residing in +There are always distributions called stable (residing in +dists/stable), one called testing (residing in +dists/testing), and one called unstable (residing in dists/unstable). This reflects the development process of the Debian project.

@@ -726,97 +750,111 @@ Active development is done in the unstable distribution distribution). Every Debian developer can update his or her packages in this distribution at any time. Thus, the contents of this distribution change from day-to-day. Since no special effort is done -to test this distribution, it is sometimes ``unstable.'' -

-After a period of development, the unstable distribution is -copied in a new distribution directory, called frozen. When -that occurs, no changes are allowed to the frozen distribution except -bug fixes; that's why it's called ``frozen.'' After another month or -a little longer, the frozen distribution is renamed to -stable, overriding the old stable distribution, -which is removed at that time. +to make sure everything in this distribution is working properly, it is +sometimes ``unstable.'' +

+Packages get copied from unstable to testing if they +satisfy certain criteria. To get into testing distribution, a +package needs to be in the archive for two weeks and not have any +release critical bugs. After that period, it will propagate into +testing as soon as anything it depends on is also added. This +process is automatic. You can see some notes on this system as well +as update_excuses (describing which packages are valid +candidates, which are not, and why not) at . +

+After a period of development, once the release manager deems fit, the +testing distribution is frozen, meaning that the policies +which control how packages move from unstable to testing are +tightened. Packages which are too buggy are removed. No changes are +allowed into testing except for bug fixes. After some time +has elapsed, depending on progress, the testing distribution +goes into a `deep freeze', when no changes are made to it except those +needed for the installation system. This is called a ``test cycle'', +and it can last up to two weeks. There can be several test cycles, +until the distribution is prepared for release, as decided by the +release manager. At the end of the last test cycle, the +testing distribution is renamed to stable, +overriding the old stable distribution, which is removed at +that time (although it can be found at &archive-host;).

This development cycle is based on the assumption that the unstable distribution becomes stable after passing a -period of testing as frozen. Even once a distribution is -considered stable, a few bugs inevitably remain--that's why the stable -distribution is updated every now and then. However, these updates are -tested very carefully and have to be introduced into the archive -individually to reduce the risk of introducing new bugs. You can find -proposed additions to stable in the proposed-updates -directory. Those packages in proposed-updates that pass -muster are periodically moved as a batch into the stable distribution -and the revision level of the stable distribution is incremented -(e.g., `1.3' becomes `1.3r1', `2.0r2' becomes `2.0r3', and so forth). -

-Note that development under unstable is continued during the -``freeze'' period, since a new unstable distribution is be -created when the older unstable is moved to frozen. -Another wrinkle is that when the frozen distribution is -offically released, the old stable distribution is completely removed -from the Debian archives (although you can still find it from servers -which serve up older, obsolete distributions). -

-In summary, there is always a stable and an unstable -distribution available, and the frozen distribution shows up -for a month or so from time to time. - +period of being in testing. Even once a distribution is +considered stable, a few bugs inevitably remain &mdash that's why the +stable distribution is updated every now and then. However, these +updates are tested very carefully and have to be introduced into the +archive individually to reduce the risk of introducing new bugs. You +can find proposed additions to stable in the +proposed-updates directory. Those packages in +proposed-updates that pass muster are periodically moved as a +batch into the stable distribution and the revision level of the +stable distribution is incremented (e.g., `1.3' becomes `1.3r1', +`2.0r2' becomes `2.0r3', and so forth). +

+Note that development under unstable continues during the +``freeze'' period, since the unstable distribution remains in +place in parallel with testing. Experimental

The experimental distribution is a specialty distribution. -It is not a full distribution in the same sense that `stable' and +It is not a full distribution in the same sense as `stable' and `unstable' are. Instead, it is meant to be a temporary staging area for highly experimental software where there's a good chance that the -software could break your system. Users who download and install +software could break your system, or software that's just too unstable +even for the unstable distribution (but there is a reason to +package it nevertheless). Users who download and install packages from experimental are expected to have been duly warned. In short, all bets are off for the experimental distribution.

-Developers should be very selective in the use of the -experimental distribution. Even if a package is highly -unstable, it could well still go into unstable; just state a -few warnings in the description. However, if there is a chance that -the software could do grave damage to a system, it might be better to -put it into experimental. -

-For instance, an experimental encrypted file system should probably go -into experimental. A new, beta, version of some software -which uses completely different configuration might go into -experimental at the maintainer's discretion. New software -which isn't likely to damage your system can go into -unstable. If you are working on an incompatible or complex -upgrade situation, you can also use experimental as a staging -area, so that testers can get early access. -

-However, using experimental as a personal staging area is not -always the best idea. You can't replace or upgrade the files in there -on your own (dinstall and the Debian archive maintainers -do that). Additionally, you'll have to remember to ask the archive -maintainers to delete the package one you have uploaded it to -unstable. Using your personal web space on -va.debian.org is generally a better idea, so that you put -less strain on the Debian archive maintainers. +If there is a chance that the software could do grave damage to a system, +it is likely to be better to put it into experimental. +For instance, an experimental compressed file system should probably go +into experimental. +

+Whenever there is a new upstream version of a package that introduces new +features but breaks a lot of old ones, it should either not be uploaded, or +be uploaded to experimental. A new, beta, version of some software +which uses completely different configuration can go into +experimental, at the maintainer's discretion. If you are working +on an incompatible or complex upgrade situation, you can also use +experimental as a staging area, so that testers can get early +access. +

+Some experimental software can still go into unstable, with a few +warnings in the description, but that isn't recommended because packages +from unstable are expected to propagate to testing and +thus to stable. +

+New software which isn't likely to damage your system can go directly into +unstable. +

+An alternative to experimental is to use your personal web space +on people.debian.org (klecker.debian.org). Release code names

Every released Debian distribution has a code name: Debian 1.1 is called `buzz'; Debian 1.2, `rex'; Debian 1.3, `bo'; Debian 2.0, -`hamm'; Debian 2.1, `slink'; and Debian 2.2, `potato'. There is also -a ``pseudo-distribution'', called `sid' which is contains packages for -architectures which are not yet officially supported or released by -Debian. These architectures are planned to be integrated into the -mainstream distribution at some future date. -

-Since the Debian has an open development model (i.e., everyone can -participate and follow the development) even the unstable distribution -is distributed via the Internet on the Debian FTP and HTTP server -network. Thus, if we had called the directory which contains the -development version `unstable', then we would have to rename it to -`stable' when the version is released, which would cause all FTP -mirrors to re-retrieve the whole distribution (which is already very -large!). +`hamm'; Debian 2.1, `slink'; Debian 2.2, `potato'; and Debian 3.0, `woody'. There is also +a ``pseudo-distribution'', called `sid', which is the current +`unstable' distribution; since packages are moved from `unstable' to +`testing' as they approach stability, `sid' itself is never released. +As well as the usual contents of a Debian distribution, `sid' contains +packages for architectures which are not yet officially supported or +released by Debian. These architectures are planned to be integrated +into the mainstream distribution at some future date. +

+Since Debian has an open development model (i.e., everyone can +participate and follow the development) even the `unstable' and `testing' +distributions are distributed to the Internet through the Debian FTP and +HTTP server network. Thus, if we had called the directory which contains +the release candidate version `testing', then we would have to rename it +to `stable' when the version is released, which would cause all FTP +mirrors to re-retrieve the whole distribution (which is quite large).

On the other hand, if we called the distribution directories Debian-x.y from the beginning, people would think that Debian @@ -826,13 +864,13 @@ version. That's the reason why the first official Debian release was 1.1, and not 1.0.)

Thus, the names of the distribution directories in the archive are -determined by their code names and not their release status (i.e., +determined by their code names and not their release status (e.g., `slink'). These names stay the same during the development period and -after the release; symbolic links, which can be changed, are made to +after the release; symbolic links, which can be changed easily, indicate the currently released stable distribution. That's why the -real distribution directories use the code names and symbolic -links for stable, unstable, and frozen -point to the appropriate release directories. +real distribution directories use the code names, while +symbolic links for stable, testing, and +unstable point to the appropriate release directories. Package uploads @@ -840,47 +878,88 @@ point to the appropriate release directories. Announcing new packages

If you want to create a new package for the Debian distribution, you -should first check the list. Checking -the WNPP ensures that no one is already working on packaging that -software, and that effort is not duplicated. Assuming no one else is -already working on your prospective package, you must then send a -short email to debian-devel@lists.debian.org describing -your plan to create a new package. You should set the subject of the -email to ``intent to package foobar'', substituting the -name of the new package for foobar. -

-There are a number of reasons why we ask maintainers to follow these -steps: +should first check the list. Checking the WNPP list ensures that +no one is already working on packaging that software, and that effort is +not duplicated. Read the for +more information. +

+Assuming no one else is already working on your prospective package, +you must then submit a bug report () against the +pseudo package wnpp +describing your plan to create a new package, including, but not +limiting yourself to, a description of the package, the license of the +prospective package and the current URL where it can be downloaded +from. +

+You should set the subject of the bug to ``ITP: foo +-- short description'', substituting the name of the new +package for foo. The severity of the bug report must be set +to wishlist. If you feel it's necessary, send a copy to +&email-debian-devel; by putting the address in the X-Debbugs-CC: header +of the message (no, don't use CC:, because that way the message's subject +won't indicate the bug number). +

+Please include a Closes: bug#nnnnn entry on the +changelog of the new package in order for the bug report to be +automatically closed once the new package is installed on the archive +(). +

+There are a number of reasons why we ask maintainers to announce their +intentions: It helps the (potentially new) maintainer to tap into the experience -of people on the list, and lets them know if any one else is working +of people on the list, and lets them know if anyone else is working on it already. It lets other people thinking about working on the package know that -there already is a volunteer, and efforts may be shared. The ``intent -to package'' message to debian-devel@lists.debian.org -will be picked up the the WNPP maintainer, and your intention will be -published in subsequent versions of the WNPP document. +there already is a volunteer, so efforts may be shared. It lets the rest of the maintainers know more about the package than -the one line description and the changelog entry ``Initial version'' -that generally gets posted to debian-devel-changes by -default. +the one line description and the usual changelog entry ``Initial release'' +that gets posted to debian-devel-changes. It is helpful to the people who live off unstable (and form our first -line of testers); we should encourage these people. +line of testers). We should encourage these people. The announcements give maintainers and other interested parties a better feel of what is going on, and what is new, in the project. - Uploading a package + Checking the package prior to upload +

+Before you upload your package, you should do basic testing on it. At +a minimum, you should try the following activities (you'll need to +have an older version of the same Debian package around): + + +Install the package and make sure the software works, or upgrade the +package from an older version to your new version if a Debian package +for it already exists. + +Run lintian over the package. You can run +lintian as follows: lintian -v +package-version.changes. This will check the source +package as well as the binary package. If you don't understand the +output that lintian generates, try adding the -i +switch, which will cause lintian to output a very verbose +description of the problem. +

+Normally, a package should not be uploaded if it causes lintian +to emit errors (they will start with E). +

+For more information on lintian, see . + +Downgrade the package to the previous version (if one exists) — this +tests the postrm and prerm scripts. + +Remove the package, then reinstall it. + - Generating the changes file + + Generating the changes file

When a package is uploaded to the Debian FTP archive, it must be accompanied by a .changes file, which gives directions to the @@ -889,69 +968,59 @@ archive maintainers for its handling. This is usually generated by

The changes file is a control file with the following fields:

- - Format - Date - Source - Binary - Architecture - Version - Distribution - Urgency - Maintainer - Description - Changes - Files - +&control-file-fields;

All of these fields are mandatory for a Debian upload. See the list -of control fields in the for the contents of these fields. -Only the Distribution field is discussed here, since it -relates to the archive maintenance policies. +of control fields in the for the contents of these fields. You can close bugs +automatically using the Description field, see . - Picking a distribution -

-Notably, the Distribution field, which originates from the -debian/changelog file, indicates which distribution the -package is intended for. There are four possible values for this -field: `stable', `unstable', `frozen', or `experimental'; these values -can also be combined. For instance, if you have a crucial security -fix release of a package, and the package has not diverged between the -stable and unstable distributions, then you might -put `stable unstable' in the changelog's -Distribution field. Or, if Debian has been frozen, and you -want to get a bug-fix release into frozen, you would set the -distribution to `frozen unstable'. (See for -more information on when to upload to frozen.) Note that -setting the distribution to `stable' means that the package will be -placed into the proposed-updates directory of the Debian -archive for further testing before it is actually included in -stable. Also note that it never makes sense to combine the -experimental distribution with anything else. + + The original source tarball

The first time a version is uploaded which corresponds to a particular -upstream version the original source tar file should be uploaded and -included in the .changes file; subsequent times the very same +upstream version, the original source tar file should be uploaded and +included in the .changes file. Subsequently, this very same tar file should be used to build the new diffs and .dsc -files, and it need not then be uploaded. +files, and will not need to be re-uploaded.

-By default dpkg-genchanges and +By default, dpkg-genchanges and dpkg-buildpackage 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 behaviour may be modified by using -sa to always include -it or -sd to always leave it out. +number is 0 or 1, indicating a new upstream version. This behaviour +may be modified by using -sa to always include it or +-sd to always leave it out.

-If no original source is included in the upload then the original +If no original source is included in the upload, the original source tar-file used by dpkg-source when constructing the .dsc file and diff to be uploaded must be byte-for-byte identical with the one already in the archive. If there -is some reason why this is not the case then the new version of the +is some reason why this is not the case, the new version of the original source should be uploaded, possibly by using the -sa flag. + + Picking a distribution +

+The Distribution field, which originates from the first line of +the debian/changelog file, indicates which distribution the +package is intended for. +

+There are three possible values for this field: `stable', `unstable', +and `experimental'. Normally, packages are uploaded into +unstable. +

+You should avoid combining `stable' with others because of potential +problems with library dependencies (for your package and for the package +built by the build daemons for other architecture). +See for more information on when and how to +upload to stable. +

+It never makes sense to combine the experimental distribution +with anything else. + + - Checking the package prior to upload -

-Before you upload your package, you should do basic testing on it. -Make sure you try the following activities (you'll need to have an -older version of the Debian package around). + Uploading to stable +

+Uploading to stable means that the package will be placed into the +proposed-updates directory of the Debian archive for further +testing before it is actually included in stable. +

+Extra care should be taken when uploading to stable. Basically, a +package should only be uploaded to stable if one of the following happens: - -Install the package and make sure the software works, or upgrade the -package from an older version to your new version if a Debian package -for it already exists. - -Run lintian over the package. You can run -lintian as follows: lintian -v -package-version.changes. This will check the source -package as well as the binary package. If you don't understand the -output that lintian generates, try adding the -i -switch, which will cause lintian to output a very verbose -description of the problem. -

-Normally, a package should not be uploaded if it causes lintian -to emit errors (they will start with E). -

-For more information on lintian, see . - -Downgrade the package to the previous version (if one exists) -- this -tests the postrm and prerm scripts. - -Remove the package, then reinstall it. - + a security problem (e.g. a Debian security advisory) + a truely critical functionality problem + the package becomes uninstallable + a released architecture lacks the package + +

+It is discouraged to change anything else in the package that isn't +important, because even trivial fixes can cause bugs later on. Uploading +new upstream versions to fix security problems is deprecated; applying the +specific patch from the new upstream version to the old one ("backporting" +the patch) is the right thing to do in most cases. +

+Packages uploaded to stable need to be compiled on systems running +stable, so that their dependencies are limited to the libraries +(and other packages) available in stable; for example, a package +uploaded to stable that depends on a library package that only +exists in unstable will be rejected. Making changes to dependencies of other +packages (by messing with Provides or shlibs files), possibly making +those other packages uninstallable, is strongly discouraged. +

+The Release Team (which can be reached at &email-debian-release;) will +regularly evaluate the uploads in proposed-updates and decide if +your package can be included in stable. Please be clear (and +verbose, if necessary) in your changelog entries for uploads to +stable, because otherwise the package won't be considered for +inclusion. + - Uploading to master + Uploading a package + + Uploading to ftp-master

To upload a package, you need a personal account on -master.debian.org. All maintainers should already -have this account, see . You can use either -ssh or ftp to transfer the files. In either -case, the files need to be placed into -/home/Debian/ftp/private/project/Incoming. (You -cannot upload to Incoming on master using anonymous FTP -- you must -use your user-name and password.) +ftp-master.debian.org, which you should have as an +official maintainer. If you use scp or rsync +to transfer the files, place them into &us-upload-dir;; +if you use anonymous FTP to upload, place them into +/pub/UploadQueue/. Please note that you should transfer +the changes file last. Otherwise, your upload may be rejected because the +archive maintenance software will parse the changes file and see that not +all files have been uploaded. If you don't want to bother with transfering +the changes file last, you can simply copy your files to a temporary +directory on ftp-master and then move them to +&us-upload-dir;.

-Note: Do not upload packages containing software that is -export-controlled by the United States government to master, -or to the overseas upload queues on chiark or +Note: Do not upload to ftp-master packages +containing software that is export-controlled by the United States +government, nor to the overseas upload queues on chiark or erlangen. This prohibition covers almost all cryptographic software, and even sometimes software that contains ``hooks'' to cryptographic software, such as electronic mail readers that support PGP encryption and authentication. Uploads of such software should go -to non-us (see below). If you are not sure whether -U.S. export controls apply to your package, post a message to -debian-devel@lists.debian.org and ask. +to non-us (see ). If you are not +sure whether U.S. export controls apply to your package, post a +message to &email-debian-devel; and ask.

-You may also find the Debian package dupload useful -when uploading packages. This handy program is distributed with -defaults for uploading via ftp to master, +You may also find the Debian packages dupload or +dput useful +when uploading packages. These handy program are distributed with +defaults for uploading via ftp to ftp-master, chiark, and erlangen. It can also be configured to -use ssh. See and - for more information. +use ssh or rsync. See , and for more information. +

+After uploading your package, you can check how the archive maintenance +software will process it by running dinstall on your changes +file: dinstall -n foo.changes + + Uploading to non-US (pandora) +

+As discussed above, export controlled software should not be uploaded +to ftp-master. Instead, use scp or rsync +to copy the package to non-us.debian.org, placing +the files in &non-us-upload-dir;. By default, you can +use the same account/password that works on ftp-master. +If you use anonymous FTP to upload, place the files into +/pub/UploadQueue/. +

+The program dupload comes with support for uploading to +non-us; please refer to the documentation that comes with +the program for details. +

+You can check your upload the same way it's done on ftp-master, +with: +dinstall -n foo.changes +

+Note that U.S. residents or citizens are subject to restrictions on +export of cryptographic software. As of this writing, U.S. citizens are +allowed to export some cryptographic software, subject to notification +rules by the U.S. Department of Commerce. +

+Debian policy does not prevent upload to non-US by U.S. residents or +citizens, but care should be taken in doing so. It is recommended that +developers take all necessary steps to ensure that they are not +breaking current US law by doing an upload to non-US, including +consulting a lawyer. +

+For packages in non-US main or contrib, developers should at least +follow the . Maintainers of non-US/non-free packages should +further consult these of non-free software. +

+This section is for information only and does not constitute legal +advice. Again, it is strongly recommended that U.S. citizens and +residents consult a lawyer before doing uploads to non-US. Uploads via chiark

-If you have a slow network connection to master, there are +If you have a slow network connection to ftp-master, there are alternatives. One is to upload files to Incoming via a upload queue in Europe on chiark. For details connect to -ftp.chiark.greenend.org.uk using anonymous FTP and -read -/pub/debian/private/project/README.how-to-upload. +.

Note: Do not upload packages containing software that is export-controlled by the United States government to the queue on -chiark. Since this upload queue goes to master, the -prescription found in applies here as well. +chiark. Since this upload queue goes to ftp-master, the +prescription found in applies here as well.

-The program dupload supports uploads to chiark; please refer -to the documentation that comes with the program for details. +The program dupload comes with support for uploading to +chiark; please refer to the documentation that comes with the +program for details. Uploads via erlangen

Another upload queue is available in Germany: just upload the files -via anonymous FTP to . +via anonymous FTP to .

The upload must be a complete Debian upload, as you would put it into -master's Incoming, i.e., a .changes files +ftp-master's Incoming, i.e., a .changes files along with the other files mentioned in the .changes. The queue daemon also checks that the .changes is correctly PGP-signed by a Debian developer, so that no bogus files can find -their way to master via the queue. Please also make sure that +their way to ftp-master via this queue. Please also make sure that the Maintainer field in the .changes contains your e-mail address. The address found there is used for all -replies, just as on master. +replies, just as on ftp-master.

There's no need to move your files into a second directory after the -upload as on chiark. And, in any case, you should get some -mail reply from the queue daemon what happened to your -upload. Hopefully it should have been moved to master, but in +upload, as on chiark. And, in any case, you should get a +mail reply from the queue daemon explaining what happened to your +upload. Hopefully it should have been moved to ftp-master, but in case of errors you're notified, too.

Note: Do not upload packages containing software that is export-controlled by the United States government to the queue on -erlangen. Since this upload queue goes to master, the -prescription found in applies here as well. +erlangen. Since this upload queue goes to ftp-master, the +prescription found in applies here as well.

-The program dupload supports uploads to +The program dupload comes with support for uploading to erlangen; please refer to the documentation that comes with the program for details. - Uploading to the non-us server + Other Upload Queues

-To upload a package to the non-us server you just have to -transfer the files via anonymous ftp to . Note, that -the .changes file must have a valid PGP signature from one of -the keys of the developers key-ring. +Another upload queue is available which is based in the US, and is a +good backup when there are problems reaching ftp-master. You can +upload files, just as in erlangen, to . +

+An upload queue is available in Japan: just upload the files via +anonymous FTP to . + Announcing package uploads

-When a package is uploaded an announcement should be posted to one of -the ``debian-changes'' lists. The announcement should give the -(source) package name and version number, and a very short summary of -the changes, in the Subject field, and should contain the -PGP-signed .changes file. Some additional explanatory text -may be added before the start of the .changes file. +When a package is uploaded, an announcement should be posted to one of +the ``debian-changes'' lists. This is now done automatically by the archive +maintenance software when it runs (usually once a day). You just need to use +a recent dpkg-dev (>= 1.4.1.2). The mail generated by +the archive maintenance software will contain the PGP/GPG signed +.changes files that you uploaded with your package. +Previously, dupload used to send those announcements, so +please make sure that you configured your dupload not to +send those announcements (check its documentation and look for +``dinstall_runs'').

If a package is released with the Distribution: set to -`stable', the announcement is sent to -debian-changes@lists.debian.org. If a package is -released with Distribution: set to `unstable', -`experimental', or `frozen' (when present), the announcement should be -posted to debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org -instead. -

-On occasion, it is necessary to upload a package to both the -stable and unstable distributions; this is done by -putting both distributions in the Distribution: line. In -such a case the upload announcement should go to both of the above -mailing lists. -

-The dupload program is clever enough to determine for itself +`stable', the announcement is sent to &email-debian-changes;. If a +package is released with Distribution: set to `unstable', +or `experimental', the announcement will be +posted to &email-debian-devel-changes; instead. +

+The dupload program is clever enough to determine where the announcement should go, and will automatically mail the announcement to the right list. See . @@ -1145,18 +1271,22 @@ announcement to the right list. See .

The Debian archive maintainers are responsible for handling package uploads. For the most part, uploads are automatically handled on a -daily basis by an archive maintenance tool called -dinstall. Specifically, updates to existing packages to +daily basis by the archive maintenance tools, katie. +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 week to occur (please be -patient). +the change to the archive may take up to a month to occur. Please be +patient.

-In any case, you will receive notification indicating that the package -has been uploaded via email. Please examine this notification -carefully. You may notice that the package didn't go into the section -you thought you set it to go into. Read on for why. +In any case, you will receive email notification indicating that the +package has added to the archive, which also indicates which bugs will +be closed by the upload. Please examine this notification carefully, +checking if any bugs you meant to close didn't get triggered. +

+The installation notification also includes information on what +section the package was inserted into. If there is a disparity, you +will receive a separate email notifying you of that. Read on below. The override file

@@ -1168,16 +1298,24 @@ have control over these fields. The values in the debian/control file are actually just hints.

The archive maintainers keep track of the canonical sections and -priorities for packages in the override file. Sometimes the -override file needs correcting. Simply changing the -package's control file is not going to work. Instead, -you should email override-change@debian.org or submit a -bug against ftp.debian.org. +priorities for packages in the override file. If there is a +disparity between the override file and the package's fields +as indicated in debian/control, then you will receive an +email noting the divergence when the package is installed into the +archive. You can either correct your debian/control file +for your next upload, or else you may wish to make a change in the +override file. +

+To alter the actual section that a package is put in, you need to +first make sure that the debian/control in your package +is accurate. Next, send an email &email-override; or submit a bug +against ftp.debian.org 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.

For more information about override files, see , -/usr/doc/debian/bug-log-mailserver.txt, and -/usr/doc/debian/bug-maint-info.txt. +name="dpkg-scanpackages" section="8">, &file-bts-mailing;, and +&file-bts-info;. @@ -1197,38 +1335,41 @@ in a timely fashion.

This chapter contains information providing guidelines for when and how NMUs should be done. A fundamental distinction is made between -source and binary NMUs, which is explained in the next section. +source and binary-only NMUs, which is explained in the next section. Terminology

-There are two new terms used throughout this section: ``binary NMU'' +There are two new terms used throughout this section: ``binary-only NMU'' and ``source NMU''. These terms are used with specific technical -meaning throughout this document. Both binary and source NMUs are +meaning throughout this document. Both binary-only and source NMUs are similar, since they involve an upload of a package by a developer who is not the official maintainer of that package. That is why it's a non-maintainer upload.

-A source NMU is a upload of a package by a developer who is not the +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 debian/changelog). This can be either a change -to the upstream source, or a change to the Debian bits of the source. -

-A binary NMU is a recompilation and upload of a binary package for a -new architecture. As such, it is usually part of a porting effort. A -binary NMU is non-maintainer uploaded binary version of a package -(often for another architecture), with no source changes required. -There are many cases where porters must fix problems in the source in -order to get them to compile for their target architecture; that would -be considered a source NMU rather than a binary NMU. As you can see, -we don't distinguish in terminology between porter NMUs and non-porter -NMUs. -

-Both classes of NMUs, source and binary, can be lumped by the term -``NMU''. However, this often leads to confusion, since most people -think ``source NMU'' when they think ``NMU''. So it's best to be -careful. In this chapter, if I use the unqualified term ``NMU'', I -mean both source and binary NMUs. +a change to debian/changelog). This can be either a +change to the upstream source, or a change to the Debian bits of the +source. Note, however, that source NMUs may also include +architecture-dependent packages, as well as an updated Debian diff +(or, more rarely, new upstream source as well). +

+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. +

+Both classes of NMUs, source and binary-only, can be lumped by the +term ``NMU''. However, this often leads to confusion, since most +people think ``source NMU'' when they think ``NMU''. So it's best to +be careful. In this chapter, if we use the unqualified term ``NMU'', +we refer to any type of non-maintainer upload NMUs, whether source and +binary, or binary-only. Who can do an NMU @@ -1245,25 +1386,24 @@ quality patches and bug reports. When to do a source NMU

Guidelines for when to do a source NMU depend on the target -distribution, i.e., stable, unstable, or frozen. Porters have +distribution, i.e., stable, unstable, or experimental. Porters have slightly different rules than non-porters, due to their unique circumstances (see ).

-Only critical changes or security bug fixes make it into stable. When -a security bug is detected a fixed package should be uploaded as soon -as possible. In this case, the Debian Security Managers should get in +When a security bug is detected, a fixed package should be uploaded +as soon as possible. In this case, the Debian security officers get in contact with the package maintainer to make sure a fixed package is uploaded within a reasonable time (less than 48 hours). If the package maintainer cannot provide a fixed package fast enough or if he/she -cannot be reached in time, the Security Manager may upload a fixed +cannot be reached in time, a security officer may upload a fixed package (i.e., do a source NMU).

-During the release freeze (see ), NMUs which -fix important or higher severity bugs are encouraged and accepted. -Even during this window, however, you should endeavor to reach the -current maintainer of the package; they might be just about to upload -a fix for the problem. As with any source NMU, the guidelines found -in need to be followed. +During the release cycle (see ), NMUs which fix +serious or higher severity bugs are encouraged and accepted. Even +during this window, however, you should endeavor to reach the current +maintainer of the package; they might be just about to upload a fix +for the problem. As with any source NMU, the guidelines found in need to be followed.

Bug fixes to unstable by non-maintainers are also acceptable, but only as a last resort or with permission. Try the following steps first, @@ -1346,7 +1486,7 @@ the release should start with the debian-revision value this, you'll have to invoke dpkg-buildpackage with the -sa switch to force the build system to pick up the new source package (normally it only looks for Debian revisions of '0' or -'1' -- it's not yet clever enough to know about `0.1'). +'1' — it's not yet clever enough to know about `0.1').

Remember, porters who are simply recompiling a package for a different architecture do not need to renumber. Porters should use new version @@ -1384,33 +1524,32 @@ simply requires a recompile (i.e., a new shared library is available to be linked against, a bug was fixed in debhelper), there must still be a changelog entry; therefore, there will be a patch. If you are a porter, you are -probably just doing a binary NMU. (Note: this leaves out in the cold -porters who have to do recompiles -- chalk it up as a weakness in how +probably just doing a binary-only NMU. (Note: this leaves out in the cold +porters who have to do recompiles — chalk it up as a weakness in how we maintain our archive.)

If the source NMU (non-maintainer upload) fixes some existing bugs, -the bugs in the Bug Tracking System which are fixed need to be -notified but not actually closed by the -non-maintainer. Technically, only the official package maintainer or -the original bug submitter are allowed to close bugs. However, the -person making the non-maintainer release must send a short message to -the relevant bugs explaining that the bugs have been fixed by the NMU. -Using control@bugs.debian.org, the party doing the NMU -should also set the severity of the bugs fixed in the NMU to `fixed'. -This ensures that everyone knows that the bug was fixed in an NMU; -however the bug is left open until the changes in the NMU are -incorporated officially into the package by the official package -maintainer. Also, open a bug with the patches needed to fix the -problem, or make sure that one of the other (already open) bugs has -the patches. -

-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. +these bugs should be tagged fixed in the Bug Tracking +System rather than closed. By convention, only the official package +maintainer or the original bug submitter are allowed to close bugs. +Fortunately, Debian's archive system recognizes NMUs and thus marks +the bugs fixed in the NMU appropriately if the person doing the NMU +has listed all bugs in the changelog with the Closes: +bug#nnnnn syntax (see for +more information describing how to close bugs via the changelog). +Tagging the bugs fixed ensures that everyone knows that the +bug was fixed in an NMU; however the bug is left open until the +changes in the NMU are incorporated officially into the package by +the official package maintainer. +

+Also, after doing an NMU, you have 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 addition, the normal maintainer should always retain the entry in the changelog file documenting the non-maintainer upload. @@ -1425,7 +1564,7 @@ fact, all the prescriptions from apply, including the need to announce the NMU to the proper lists.

Make sure you do not change the value of the maintainer in -the debian/control file. Your name from the NMU entry of +the debian/control file. Your name as given in the NMU entry of the debian/changelog file will be used for signing the changes file. @@ -1440,27 +1579,29 @@ is part of your duty as a maintainer to be aware of issues of portability. Therefore, even if you are not a porter, you should read most of this chapter.

-Porting is the act of building Debian packages for architectures which +Porting is the act of building Debian packages for architectures that is different from the original architecture of the package maintainer's binary package. It is a unique and essential activity. In fact, porters do most of the actual compiling of Debian packages. -For instance, for one i386 binary package, there has to be a -recompile for each architecture, which is around five more builds. +For instance, for a single i386 binary package, there must be +a recompile for each architecture, which is amounts to +&number-of-arches; more builds. Being Kind to Porters

Porters have a difficult and unique task, since they are required to deal with a large volume of packages. Ideally, every source package -should build right out of the box; unfortunately, this is often not +should build right out of the box. Unfortunately, this is often not the case. This section contains a checklist of ``gotchas'' often -committed by Debian maintainers -- common problems which often stymie -porters, and make their jobs unnecessarily more difficult. +committed by Debian maintainers — common problems which often stymie +porters, and make their jobs unnecessarily difficult.

The first and most important watchword is to respond quickly to bug or issues raised by porters. Please treat porters with courtesy, as if they were in fact co-maintainers of your package (which in a way, they -are). +are). Please be tolerant of succinct or even unclear bug reports, +doing your best to hunt down whatever the problem is.

By far, most of the problems encountered by porters are caused by packaging bugs in the source packages. Here is a checklist @@ -1468,12 +1609,23 @@ of things you should check or be aware of. +Make sure that your Build-Depends and +Build-Depends-Indep settings in debian/control +are set properly. The best way to validate this is to use the +debootstrap package to create an unstable chroot +environment. Within that chrooted environment, install the +build-essential package and any package +dependancies mention in Build-Depends and/or +Build-Depends-Indep. Finally, try building your package +within that chrooted environment. +

+See the for instructions on setting build dependencies. + 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 . Setting your architecture to ``i386'' -is usually incorrect. +instructions in the . Setting your architecture to ``i386'' is usually incorrect. Make sure your source package is correct. Do dpkg-source -x package.dsc to make sure your source package unpacks @@ -1491,11 +1643,13 @@ or programs. For instance, you should never be calling programs in be setup in a special way. Try building your package on another machine, even if it's the same architecture. -Don't depend on the package your building already being installed (a +Don't depend on the package you're building already being installed (a sub-case of the above issue). -Don't rely on egcc being available; don't rely on -gcc being a certain version. +Don't rely on the compiler being a certain version, if possible. If +not, then make sure your build dependencies reflect the restrictions, +although you are probably asking for trouble, since different +architectures sometimes standardize on different compilers. Make sure your debian/rules contains separate ``binary-arch'' and ``binary-indep'' targets, as the Debian Packaging Manual requires. @@ -1509,22 +1663,46 @@ try to run dpkg-buildpackage -b.

If the package builds out of the box for the architecture to be ported to, you are in luck and your job is easy. This section applies to -that case; it describes how to build and upload your binary NMU so +that case; it describes how to build and upload your binary-only NMU so that it is properly installed into the archive. If you do have to patch the package in order to get it to compile for the other architecture, you are actually doing a source NMU, so consult instead.

-In a binary NMU, no real changes are being made to the source. You do +In a binary-only NMU, no real changes are being made to the source. You do not need to touch any of the files in the source package. This includes debian/changelog.

The way to invoke dpkg-buildpackage is as -dpkg-buildpackage -B -mporter-email. Of course, +dpkg-buildpackage -B -eporter-email. Of course, set porter-email to your email address. This will do a binary-only build of only the architecture-dependant portions of the package, using the `binary-arch' target in debian/rules. + + Recompilation Binary-Only NMU Versioning +

+Sometimes you need to recompile a package against other packages which +have been updated, such as libraries. You do have to bump the version +number in this case, so that the version comparison system can +function properly. Even so, these are considered binary-only NMUs +— there is no need in this case to trigger all other +architectures to consider themselves out of date or requiring +recompilation. +

+Such recompilations require special ``magic'' version numbering, so that +the archive maintenance tools recognize that, even though there is a +new Debian version, there is no corresponding source update. If you +get this wrong, the archive maintainers will reject your upload (due +to lack of corresponding source code). +

+The ``magic'' for a recompilation-only NMU is triggered by using the +third-level number on the Debian part of the version. For instance, +if the latest version you are recompiling against was version +``2.9-3'', your NMU should carry a version of ``2.9-3.0.1''. If the +latest version was ``3.4-2.1'', your NMU should have a version number +of ``3.4-2.1.1''. + When to do a source NMU if you are a porter @@ -1534,23 +1712,28 @@ Porters doing a source NMU generally follow the guidelines found in 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. Crucial fixes (i.e., changes need to get a source +uploading to. + +

However, if you are a porter doing an NMU for `unstable', the above guidelines for porting should be followed, with two variations. -Firstly, the acceptable waiting period -- the time between when the -bug is submitted to the BTS and when it is OK to do an NMU -- is seven +Firstly, the acceptable waiting period &mdash the time between when the +bug is submitted to the BTS and when it is OK to do an NMU — is seven days for porters working on the unstable distribution. This period can be shortened if the problem is critical and imposes hardship on the porting effort, at the discretion of the porter group. (Remember, none of this is Policy, just mutually agreed upon guidelines.)

Secondly, porters doing source NMUs should make sure that the bug they -submit to the BTS should be of severity `important' or greater. This +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 @@ -1601,7 +1784,14 @@ cannot yet be autobuilt) and work on it. most porting efforts are either using it currently or planning to use it in the near future. It collects a number of as yet unpackaged components which are currently very useful and in use continually, -such as sbuild and wanna-build. +such as andrea, sbuild and +wanna-build. +

+Some of the data produced by buildd which is +generally useful to porters is available on the web at . This data includes nightly updated information +from andrea (source dependencies) and +quinn-diff (packages needing recompilation).

We are very excited about this system, since it potentially has so many uses. Independent development groups can use the system for @@ -1634,25 +1824,32 @@ cases. Moving packages

-Sometimes a package will change either its section or its subsection. -For instance, a package from the `non-free' section might be GPL'd in -a later version; in this case you should consider moving it to `main' -or `contrib' (see the for guidelines). -

-In this case, it is sufficient to edit the package control information -normally and re-upload the package (see the for details). Carefully examine the +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 should be moved to `main' or +`contrib'. See the for guidelines on what section a package +belongs in. + +

+If you need to change the section for one of your packages, change the +package control information to place the package in the desired +section, and re-upload the package (see the for details). Carefully examine the installation log sent to you when the package is installed into the archive. If for some reason the old location of the package remains, file a bug against ftp.debian.org asking that the old location be removed. Give details on what you did, since it might be -a dinstall bug. +a bug in the archive maintenance software. +

+If, on the other hand, you need to change the subsection 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 reupload that. Also, you'll need to get the +override file updated, as described in . - Removing packages + Removing packages

If for some reason you want to completely remove a package (say, if it is an old compatibility library which is not longer required), you @@ -1661,74 +1858,80 @@ package be removed. Make sure you indicate which distribution the package should be removed from.

If in doubt concerning whether a package is disposable, email -debian-devel@lists.debian.org asking for opinions. -Also of interest is the apt-cache program from the -apt package. When invoked as apt-cache showpkg -/var/cache/apt/pkgcache.bin package, the program will -show details for package, including reverse depends. +&email-debian-devel; asking for opinions. Also of interest is the +apt-cache program from the apt +package. When invoked as apt-cache showpkg +package, the program will show details for +package, including reverse depends. Removing packages from Incoming

-If you decide to remove a package from Incoming, it is nice -but not required to send a notification of that to the appropriate -announce list (either debian-changes@lists.debian.org -or debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org). +In the past, it was possible to remove packages from incoming. +With the introduction of the New Incoming system this is no longer +possible. Instead, you have to upload a new revision of your package with +a higher version as the package you want to replace. Both versions will be +installed in the archive but only the higher version will actually be +available in unstable 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. Replacing or renaming packages

Sometimes you made a mistake naming the package and you need to rename it. In this case, you need to follow a two-step process. First, set your debian/control file to replace and conflict with the -obsolete name of the package (see the for details). Once you've uploaded +obsolete name of the package (see the for details). Once you've uploaded that package, and the package has moved into the archive, file a bug against ftp.debian.org asking to remove the package with the obsolete name. - - Orphaning a package

-If you can no longer maintain a package, then you should set the -package maintainer to Debian QA Group -<debian-qa@lists.debian.org> and email -wnpp@debian.org indicating that the package is now -orphaned. If the package is especially crucial to Debian, you should -instead email debian-devel@lists.debian.org asking for -a new maintainer. - +If you can no longer maintain a package, you need to inform the others +about that, and see that the package is marked as orphaned. +you should set the package maintainer to Debian QA Group +&orphan-address; and submit a bug report +against the pseudo package wnpp. The bug report should be +titled O: package -- short description +indicating that the package is now orphaned. The severity of the bug +should be set to normal. If you feel it's necessary, send a copy +to &email-debian-devel; by putting the address in the X-Debbugs-CC: header +of the message (no, don't use CC:, because that way the message's subject +won't indicate the bug number). +

+If the package is especially crucial to Debian, you should instead submit +a bug against wnpp and title it RFA: package -- +short description and set its severity to +important. Definitely copy the message to debian-devel in this +case, as described above. +

+Read instructions on the +for more information. Adopting a package

-Periodically, a listing of packages in need of new maintainers will be -sent to debian-devel@lists.debian.org list. This list -is also available at in the Work-Needing and Prospective Packages -document (WNPP), -and at . -If you wish to take over maintenance of any of the packages listed in -the WNPP, or if you can no longer maintain a packages you have, or you -simply want to know if any one is working on a new package, send a -message to wnpp@debian.org. +A list of packages in need of a new maintainer is available at in the +. If you wish to take over maintenance of any of the +packages listed in the WNPP, please take a look at the aforementioned +page for information and procedures.

It is not OK to simply take over a package that you feel is neglected --- that would be package hijacking. You can, of course, contact the +— that would be package hijacking. You can, of course, contact the current maintainer and ask them if you may take over the package. However, without their assent, you may not take over the package. Even if they ignore you, that is still not grounds to take over a package. If you really feel that a maintainer has gone AWOL (absent -without leave), post a query to -debian-private@lists.debian.org. +without leave), post a query to &email-debian-private;.

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 -Maintainer: field, although it can take a couple of weeks. If -you do not expect to upload a new version for a while, send an email -to override-change@debian.org so that bug reports will -go to you right away. - +Maintainer: 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, +send an email to &email-override; so that bug reports will go to you +right away. @@ -1737,32 +1940,31 @@ go to you right away. Monitoring bugs

If you want to be a good maintainer, you should periodically check the - for your packages. The BTS contains all the open bugs against -your packages. + for your +packages. The BTS contains all the open bugs against your packages.

Maintainers interact with the BTS via email addresses at bugs.debian.org. Documentation on available commands can be -found at , or, if you have -installed the debian-doc package, you can look at -the local files /usr/doc/debian/bug-*. +found at , or, if you have installed the +doc-debian package, you can look at the local files +&file-bts-docs;.

Some find it useful to get periodic reports on open bugs. You can add a cron job such as the following if you want to get a weekly email outlining all the open bugs against your packages: # ask for weekly reports of bugs in my packages -0 17 * * fri echo "index maint maintainer-address" | mail request@bugs.debian.org +&cron-bug-report; -Replace maintainer-address with you official Debian +Replace address with you official Debian maintainer address. Submitting Bugs

Often as a package maintainer, you find bugs in other packages or else have bugs reported to your packages which need to be reassigned. The -BTS can tell you how to do this. + can tell you how +to do this.

We encourage you to file bugs when there are problems. Try to submit the bug from a normal user account at which you are likely to receive @@ -1773,22 +1975,21 @@ good job reporting a bug and redirecting it to the proper location. For extra credit, you can go through other packages, merging bugs which are reported more than once, or setting bug severities to `fixed' when they have already been fixed. Note that when you are -neither the bug submitter nor the package maintainer, you are should +neither the bug submitter nor the package maintainer, you should not actually close the bug (unless you secure permission from the maintainer). Responding to Bugs

Make sure that any discussions you have about bugs are sent both to -the original submitter of the bug, and the bug itself (i.e., +the original submitter of the bug, and the bug itself (e.g., 123@bugs.debian.org).

You should never close bugs via the bug server `close' -command sent to control@bugs.debian.org. If you do so, -the original submitter will not receive any feedback on why the bug -was closed. +command sent to &email-bts-control;. If you do so, the original +submitter will not receive any feedback on why the bug was closed. - When bugs are closed by new uploads + When bugs are closed by new uploads

If you fix a bug in your packages, it is your responsibility as the package maintainer to close the bug when it has been fixed. However, @@ -1797,8 +1998,30 @@ been accepted into the Debian archive. Therefore, once you get notification that your updated package has been installed into the archive, you can and should close the bug in the BTS.

-Again, see the BTS documentation for details on how to do this. -Often, it is sufficient to mail the .changes file to +If you are using a new version of dpkg-dev and you do +your changelog entry properly, the archive maintenance software will close +the bugs automatically. All you have to do is follow a certain syntax in +your debian/changelog file: + +acme-cannon (3.1415) unstable; urgency=low + + * Frobbed with options (closes: Bug#98339) + * Added safety to prevent operator dismemberment, closes: bug#98765, + bug#98713, #98714. + * Added manpage. Closes: #98725. + + +Technically speaking, the following Perl regular expression is what is +used: + + /closes:\s*(?:bug)?\#\s*\d+(?:,\s*(?:bug)?\#\s*\d+)*/ig + + +The author prefers the (closes: Bug#XXX) syntax, +since it stands out from the rest of the changelog entries. +

+If you want to close bugs the old fashioned, manual way, it is usually +sufficient to mail the .changes file to XXX-done@bugs.debian.org, where XXX is your bug number. @@ -1807,30 +2030,28 @@ bug number.

You should periodically get the new lintian from `unstable' and check over all your packages. Alternatively you can -check for your maintainer email address at the . -That report, which is updated automatically, contains -lintian reports against the latest version of the -distribution (usually from 'unstable') using the latest -lintian. +check for your maintainer email address at the . That report, which is updated +automatically, contains lintian reports against the +latest version of the distribution (usually from 'unstable') using the +latest lintian. Reporting lots of bugs at once

Reporting a great number of bugs for the same problem on a great -number of different packages -- i.e., more than 10 -- is a deprecated +number of different packages &mdash i.e., more than 10 &mdash is a deprecated practice. Take all possible steps to avoid submitting bulk bugs at all. For instance, if checking for the problem can be automated, add a new check to lintian so that an error or warning is emitted.

If you report more than 10 bugs on the same topic at once, it is -recommended that you send a message to -debian-devel@lists.debian.org describing your intention -before submitting the report. This will allow other developers to -verify that the bug is a real problem. In addition, it will help -prevent a situation in which several maintainers start filing the same -bug report simultaneously. +recommended that you send a message to &email-debian-devel; describing +your intention before submitting the report. This will allow other +developers to verify that the bug is a real problem. In addition, it +will help prevent a situation in which several maintainers start +filing the same bug report simultaneously.

Note that when sending lots of bugs on the same subject, you should send the bug report to maintonly@bugs.debian.org so @@ -1838,11 +2059,56 @@ that the bug report is not forwarded to the bug distribution mailing list. + + Interaction with Prospective Developers + +

+This chapter describes procedures that existing Debian developers should +follow when it comes to dealing with wannabe developers. + + Sponsoring packages +

+Sponsoring a package means uploading a package for a maintainer who is not +able to do it on their own, a new maintainer applicant. Sponsoring a package +also means accepting responsibility for it. +

+New maintainers usually have certain difficulties creating Debian packages +— this is quite understandable. That is why the sponsor is there, to check +the package and verify that it is good enough for inclusion in Debian. +(Note that if the sponsored package is new, the FTP admins will also have to +inspect it before letting it in.) +

+Sponsoring merely by signing the upload or just recompiling is +definitely not recommended. You need to build the source +package just like you would build a package of your own. Remember that it +doesn't matter that you left the prospective developer's name both in the +changelog and the control file, the upload can still be traced to you. +

+If you are an application manager for a prospective developer, you can also +be their sponsor. That way you can also verify the how the applicant is +handling the `Tasks and Skills' part of their application. + + Advocating new developers +

+See the page about at the Debian web site. + + Handling new maintainer applications +

+Please see at the Debian web site. + + + Overview of Debian Maintainer Tools

This section contains a rough overview of the tools available to -maintainers. These tools are meant to help convenience developers and -free their time for critical tasks. +maintainers. The following is by no means complete or definitive, but +just a guide to some of the more popular tools. +

+Debian maintainer tools are meant to help convenience developers and +free their time for critical tasks. As Larry Wall says, there's more +than one way to do it.

Some people prefer to use high-level package maintenance tools and some do not. Debian is officially agnostic on this issue; any tool @@ -1853,7 +2119,8 @@ endorse any particular tool to the exclusion of a competing tool.

Most of the descriptions of these packages come from the actual package descriptions themselves. Further information can be found in -the package documentation itself. +the package documentation itself. You can also see more info with the +command apt-cache show package_name. @@ -1876,6 +2143,25 @@ of Debian policy as well as some checks for common errors. The use of id="upload-checking"> and . + + debconf +

+debconf provides a consistent interface to +configuring packages interactively. It is user interface +independant, allowing end-users to configure packages with a +text-only interface, an HTML interface, or a dialog interface. New +interfaces can be added modularly. +

+You can find documentation for this package in the +debconf-doc package. +

+Many feel that this system should be used for all packages requiring +interactive configuration. debconf is not +currently required by Debian Policy, however, that may change in the +future. +

+ + debhelper

@@ -1885,10 +2171,14 @@ building binary Debian packages. Programs are included to install various files into your package, compress files, fix file permissions, integrate your package with the Debian menu system.

-Unlike debmake, debhelper is -broken into several small, granular commands which act in a consistent -manner. As such, it allows a greater granularity of control than -debmake. +Unlike some approaches, debhelper is broken into +several small, granular commands which act in a consistent manner. As +such, it allows a greater granularity of control than some of the +other "debian/rules tools". +

+There are a number of little debhelper add-on +packages, too transient to document. You can see the list of most of +them by doing apt-cache search ^dh-. @@ -1907,13 +2197,28 @@ The consensus is that debmake is now deprecated in favor of debhelper. However, it's not a bug to use debmake. + yada

-yada is a new packaging helper tool with a slightly -different philosophy. It uses a debian/packages file to -auto-generate other necessary files in the debian/ -subdirectory. +yada is another packaging helper tool. It uses a +debian/packages file to auto-generate +debian/rules other necessary files in the +debian/ subdirectory. +

+Note that yada is called "essentially unmaintained" +by it's own maintainer, Charles Briscoe-Smith. As such, it can be +considered deprecated. + + + + equivs +

+equivs is another package for making packages. It +is often suggested for local use if you need to make a package simply +to fulfill dependencies. It is also sometimes used when making +``meta-packages'', which are packages whose only purpose is to depend +on other packages. @@ -1940,14 +2245,39 @@ to send mail about the upload of a package. You can configure it for new upload locations or methods. + + dput +

+The dput package and script does much the same +thing as dupload, but in a different way. It has +some features over dupload, such as the ability to +check the GnuPG signature and checksums before uploading, and the +possibility of running dinstall in dry-run mode after the +upload. + + fakeroot

fakeroot simulates root privileges. This enables you to build packages without being root (packages usually want to install files with root ownership). If you have -fakeroot installed, you can say, i.e., -dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot as a user. +fakeroot installed, you can build packages as a +user: dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot. + + + + debootstrap +

+The debootstrap package and script allows you to +"bootstrap" a Debian base system into any part of your filesystem. +By "base system", we mean the bare minimum of packages required to +operate and install the rest of the system. +

+Having a system link this can be useful in many ways. For instance, +you can chroot into it if you want to test your build +depends. Or, you can test how your package behaves when installed +into a bare base system. @@ -1955,10 +2285,10 @@ install files with root ownership). If you have

devscripts is a package containing a few wrappers and tools which you may find helpful for maintaining your Debian -packages. Example scripts include debchange, which will -manipulate your debian/changelog file from the -command-line, and debuild, which is a wrapper around -dpkg-buildpackage. +packages. Example scripts include debchange and +dch, which manipulate your debian/changelog +file from the command-line, and debuild, which is a +wrapper around dpkg-buildpackage. @@ -1966,7 +2296,19 @@ command-line, and debuild, which is a wrapper around

debget is a package containing a convenient script which can be helpful in downloading files from the Debian archive. -You can use it to download source packages, for instance. +You can use it to download source packages, for instance (although +apt-get source package does pretty much the same +thing). + + +