X-Git-Url: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~ianmdlvl/git?p=developers-reference.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=developers-reference.sgml;h=fa740a9b02db1712179c5254be230940c5e16b04;hp=be2a1598faf8a4051f25a83ab745d80109a44926;hb=c622506e664571f7e04563fcb53aea660ba4af1d;hpb=441c42955be5f83ec4cf6f97c86b79279dee23c6 diff --git a/developers-reference.sgml b/developers-reference.sgml index be2a159..fa740a9 100644 --- a/developers-reference.sgml +++ b/developers-reference.sgml @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ %commondata; - + Packages

There are two types of Debian packages, namely source and binary packages.

-Source packages consist of either two or three files: a .dsc -file, and either a .tar.gz file or both an -.orig.tar.gz and a .diff.gz file. +Source packages consist of either two or three files: a .dsc +file, and either a .tar.gz file or both an +.orig.tar.gz and a .diff.gz file.

If a package is developed specially for Debian and is not distributed -outside of Debian, there is just one .tar.gz file which +outside of Debian, there is just one .tar.gz file which contains the sources of the program. If a package is distributed -elsewhere too, the .orig.tar.gz file stores the so-called +elsewhere too, the .orig.tar.gz file stores the so-called upstream source code, that is the source code that's distributed from the upstream maintainer (often the author of -the software). In this case, the .diff.gz contains the +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 +The .dsc file lists all the files in the source package together with checksums (md5sums) and some additional info about the package (maintainer, version, etc.). @@ -728,51 +858,47 @@ the package (maintainer, version, etc.).

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 +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). +(another is /pub/debian).

A distribution is comprised of Debian source and binary packages, and the -respective Sources and Packages index files, containing +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). +pool/ directory, while the latter are kept in the dists/ +directory of the archive (for backwards compatibility). Stable, testing, and unstable

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 +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.

Active development is done in the unstable distribution (that's why this distribution is sometimes called the development 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 +distribution changes from day-to-day. Since no special effort is done to make sure everything in this distribution is working properly, it is sometimes literally 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 . + is generated automatically by taking +packages from unstable if they satisfy certain criteria. Those +criteria should ensure a good quality for packages within testing. +The update to testing is launched each day after the +new packages have been installed.

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 +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 @@ -788,16 +914,17 @@ 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 being in testing. Even once a distribution is -considered stable, a few bugs inevitably remain &mdash that's why the +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 +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., ‘3.0’ becomes ‘3.0r1’, -‘2.2r4’ becomes ‘2.0r5’, and so forth). +stable distribution is incremented (e.g., ‘3.0’ becomes +‘3.0r1’, ‘2.2r4’ becomes ‘2.2r5’, and +so forth).

Note that development under unstable continues during the freeze period, since the unstable distribution remains in @@ -805,7 +932,7 @@ place in parallel with testing. Experimental

-The experimental distribution is a specialty distribution. +The experimental distribution is a special distribution. It is not a full distribution in the same sense as `stable' and `unstable' are. Instead, it is meant to be a temporary staging area for highly experimental software where there's a good chance that the @@ -833,13 +960,16 @@ 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. +thus to stable. You should not be afraid to use +experimental since it does not cause any pain to the ftpmasters, +the experimental packages are automatically removed once you upload +the package in unstable with a higher version number.

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). +on people.debian.org. Release code names @@ -879,6 +1009,338 @@ real distribution directories use the code names, while symbolic links for stable, testing, and unstable point to the appropriate release directories. + + The Incoming system +

+The Incoming system is responsible of collecting updated packages and +installing them in the Debian archive. It consists of a set of +directories and scripts that are installed both on &ftp-master-host; +and &non-us-host;. +

+Packages are uploaded by all the maintainers into a directory called +unchecked. This directory is scanned every 15 minutes by +the katie script, which verifies the integrity of the uploaded packages and the cryptographic +signatures. If the package is considered ready to be installed, it +is moved into the accepted directory. If this is the first upload of +the package, it is moved in the new directory, where it waits +for an approval of the ftpmasters. If the package contains files to be installed +"by-hand" it is moved in the byhand directory, where it waits +for a manual installation by the ftpmasters. Otherwise, if any error has been detected, +the package is refused and is moved in the reject directory. +

+Once the package is accepted the system sends a confirmation +mail to the maintainer, closes all the bugs marked as fixed by the upload +and the auto-builders may start recompiling it. The package is now publicly +accessible at (there is no +such URL for packages in the non-US archive) until it is really installed +in the Debian archive. This happens only once a day, the package +is then removed from incoming and installed in the pool along with all +the other packages. Once all the other updates (generating new +Packages and Sources index files for example) have been +made, a special script is called to ask all the primary mirrors to update +themselves. +

+All debian developers have write access to the unchecked +directory in order to upload their packages, they also have that access +to the reject directory in order to remove their bad uploads +or to move some files back in the unchecked directory. But +all the other directories are only writable by the ftpmasters, that is +why you can not remove an upload once it has been accepted. + + Delayed incoming +

+The unchecked directory has a special DELAYED +subdirectory. It is itself subdivided in nine directories +called 1-day to 9-day. Packages which are uploaded in +one of those directories will be moved in the real unchecked +directory after the corresponding number of days. +This is done by a script that is run each day and which moves the +packages between the directories. Those which are in "1-day" are +installed in unchecked while the others are moved in the +adjacent directory (for example, a package in 5-day will +be moved in 4-day). This feature is particularly useful +for people who are doing non-maintainer uploads. Instead of +waiting before uploading a NMU, it is uploaded as soon as it is +ready but in one of those DELAYED/x-day directories. +That leaves the corresponding number of days for the maintainer +to react and upload another fix themselves if they are not +completely satisfied with the NMU. Alternatively they can remove +the NMU. +

+The use of that delayed feature can be simplified with a bit +of integration with your upload tool. For instance, if you use +dupload (see ), you can add this +snippet to your configuration file: + +$delay = ($ENV{DELAY} || 7); +$cfg{'delayed'} = { + fqdn => "&ftp-master-host;", + login => "yourdebianlogin", + incoming => "/org/ftp.debian.org/incoming/DELAYED/$delay-day/", + dinstall_runs => 1, + method => "scpb" +}; + +Once you've made that change, dupload can be used to +easily upload a package in one of the delayed directories: +DELAY=5 dupload --to delayed <changes-file> + + + The "testing" distribution +

+The scripts that update the testing distribution are run each day +after the installation of the +updated packages. They generate the Packages files for +the testing distribution, but they do so in an intelligent manner +trying to avoid any inconsistency and trying to use only +non-buggy packages. +

The inclusion of a package from unstable is conditional on the following: + + +The package must have been available in unstable for several days; +the precise number depends on the upload's urgency field. It +is 10 days for low urgency, 5 days for medium urgency and 2 days for high +urgency. Those delays may be doubled during a freeze; + +It must have less release-critical bugs than the version available +in testing; + +It must be available on all architectures on which it has been +previously built. may be of interest to +check that information; + +It must not break any dependency of a package that is already available +in testing; + +The packages on which it depends must either be available in testing +or they must be accepted into testing at the same time (and they will +if they respect themselves all the criteria); + +

+The scripts are generating some output files to explain why some packages +are kept out of testing. They are available at . Alternatively, it is possible to use +the grep-excuses program which is in the +devscripts package. It can be easily put in a + +to keep someone informed of the progression of his packages in testing. +

+The update_excuses file does not always give the precise reason +why the package is refused, one may have to find it on their own by looking +what would break with the inclusion of the package. The gives some more information +about the usual problems which may be causing such troubles. +

+Sometimes, some packages never enter testing because the set of +inter-relationship is too complicated and can not be sorted out +by the scripts. In that case, the release manager must be +contacted, and he will force the inclusion of the packages. + + Package information +

+ + On the web +

+Each package has several dedicated web pages. +http://&packages-host;/package-name +displays each version of the package +available in the various distributions. Each version links to a page +which provides information, including the package description, +the dependencies and package download links. +

+The bug tracking system track bugs for each package. You can +view the bugs of a given package at the URL +http://&bugs-host;/package-name. + + The madison utility +

+madison is a command-line utility that is available +on both &ftp-master-host; and &non-us-host;. It +uses a single argument corresponding to a package name. In result +it displays which version of the package is available for each +architecture and distribution combination. An example will explain +it better. +

+ +$ madison libdbd-mysql-perl +libdbd-mysql-perl | 1.2202-4 | stable | source, alpha, arm, i386, m68k, powerpc, sparc +libdbd-mysql-perl | 1.2216-2 | testing | source, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc +libdbd-mysql-perl | 1.2216-2.0.1 | testing | alpha +libdbd-mysql-perl | 1.2219-1 | unstable | source, alpha, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, m68k, mips, mipsel, powerpc, s390, sparc + +

+In this example, you can see that the version in unstable differs from +the version in testing and that there has been a binary-only NMU of the +package for the alpha architecture. Each time the package has been +recompiled on most of the architectures. + + The Package Tracking System +

+The Package Tracking System (PTS) is basically a tool to track by mail +the activity of a source package. You just have to subscribe +to a source package to start getting the mails related to it. +You get the same mails as the maintainer. Each mail +sent through the PTS is classified and associated to one of +the keyword listed below. This will let you select the mails that +you want to receive. +

+By default you will get: + + bts + +All the bug reports and following discussions. + + bts-control + +The control mails notifying a status change in one of the bugs. + + upload-source + +The confirmation mail from katie when an uploaded source +package is accepted. + + katie-other + +Other warning and error mails from katie (like the +override disparity for the section or priority field). + + default + +Any non-automatic mail sent to the PTS by people who wanted to +contact the subscribers of the package. + + summary + +In the future, you may receive regular summary mails to keep you +informed of the package's status (bug statistics, porting overview, +progression in testing, ...). + +

+You can also decide to receive some more information: + + upload-binary + +The confirmation mail from katie when an uploaded binary +package is accepted (to check that your package is recompiled for all +architectures). + + cvs + +CVS commits if the maintainer has setup a system to forward commit +notification to the PTS. + + + The PTS email interface +

+You can control your subscription(s) to the PTS by sending +various commands to pts@qa.debian.org. + + + +subscribe <srcpackage> [<email>] + + Subscribes email to communications related to the source package + srcpackage. Sender address is used if the second argument is + not present. If srcpackage is not a valid source package, + you'll get a warning. However if it's a valid binary package, the PTS + will subscribe you to the corresponding source package. + +unsubscribe <srcpackage> [<email>] + + Removes a previous subscription to the source package srcpackage + using the specified email address or the sender address if the second + argument is left out. + +which [<email>] + + Lists all subscriptions for the sender or the email address optionally + specified. + +keyword [<email>] + + Tells you the keywords that you are accepting. Each mail sent through + the Package Tracking System is associated to a keyword and you receive + only the mails associated to keywords that you are accepting. Here is + the list of available keywords: + + bts: mails coming from the Debian Bug Tracking System + bts-control: reply to mails sent to + control@bugs.debian.org + summary: automatic summary mails about the state of a package + cvs: notification of CVS commits + upload-source: announce of a new source upload that + has been accepted + upload-binary: announce of a new binary-only upload (porting) + katie-other: other mails from ftpmasters + (override disparity, etc.) + default: all the other mails (those which aren't "automatic") + + +keyword <srcpackage> [<email>] + + Same as previous item but for the given source package since + you may select a different set of keywords for each source package. + +keyword [<email>] {+|-|=} <list of keywords> + + Accept (+) or refuse (-) mails associated to the given keyword(s). + Define the list (=) of accepted keywords. + +keyword <srcpackage> [<email>] {+|-|=} <list of keywords> + + Same as previous item but overrides the keywords list for the + indicated source package. + +quit | thanks | -- + + Stops processing commands. All following lines are ignored by + the bot. + + + Filtering PTS mails +

+Once you are subscribed to a package, you will get the mails sent to +srcpackage@packages.qa.debian.org. Those mails +have special headers appended to let you filter them in a special +mailbox with procmail. The added headers are +X-Loop, X-PTS-Package, X-PTS-Keyword and +X-Unsubscribe. +

+Here is an example of added headers for a source upload notification +on the dpkg package: + +X-Loop: dpkg@&pts-host; +X-PTS-Package: dpkg +X-PTS-Keyword: upload-source +X-Unsubscribe: echo 'unsubscribe dpkg' | mail pts@qa.debian.org + + + Forwarding CVS commits in the PTS +

+If you use a publicly accessible CVS repository for maintaining +your Debian package you may want to forward the commit notification +to the PTS so that the subscribers (possible co-maintainers) can +closely follow the package's evolution. +

+It's very easy to setup. Once your CVS repository generates commit +notifications, you just have to make sure it sends a copy of those mails +to srcpackage_cvs@&pts-host;. Only people who +accepts the cvs keyword will receive the notifications. + + Developer's packages overview +

+A QA (quality assurance) web portal is available at which displays a table listing all the packages +of a single developer (including those where the party is listed as +a co-maintainer). The table gives a good summary about the developer's +packages: number of bugs by severity, list of available versions in each +distribution, testing status and much more including links to any other +useful information. +

+It is a good idea to look up your own data regularly so that +you don't forget any open bug, and so that you don't forget which +packages are under your responsibility. + Managing Packages

@@ -898,7 +1360,7 @@ 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 +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 @@ -951,7 +1413,7 @@ completed. This file will be installed in /usr/share/doc/package/changelog.gz for native packages.

-The debian/changelog file conform to a certain structure, +The debian/changelog file conforms to a certain structure, with a number of different fields. One field of note, the distribution, is described in . More information about the structure of this file can be found in @@ -998,7 +1460,7 @@ 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. +tests the postrm and prerm scripts. Remove the package, then reinstall it. @@ -1007,7 +1469,7 @@ Remove the package, then reinstall it. 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 +accompanied by a .changes file, which gives directions to the archive maintainers for its handling. This is usually generated by dpkg-genchanges during the normal package build process.

@@ -1026,100 +1488,53 @@ id="upload-bugfix">.

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. Subsequently, this very same -tar file should be used to build the new diffs and .dsc +included in the .changes file. Subsequently, this very same +tar file should be used to build the new diffs and .dsc files, and will not need to be re-uploaded.

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 +number is 0 or 1, indicating a new upstream version. This behavior 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, 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, the new version of the -original source should be uploaded, possibly by using the -sa -flag. +.dsc file and diff to be uploaded must be +byte-for-byte identical with the one already in the archive. 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. +package is intended for.

-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. +There are several possible values for this field: `stable', `unstable', +`testing-proposed-updates' and `experimental'. Normally, packages are uploaded into +unstable. Actually, there are two other possible distributions: +`stable-security' and `testing-security'. However they are used by the +security team; do not upload there without their agreement.

-It never makes sense to combine the experimental distribution -with anything else. - - +It is technically possible to upload a package into several distributions +at the same time but it usually doesn't make sense to use that feature +because the dependencies of the package may vary with the distribution. +In particular, it never makes sense to combine the experimental +distribution with anything else. Uploading to stable

Uploading to stable means that the package will be placed into the -proposed-updates directory of the Debian archive for further +stable-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: a security problem (e.g. a Debian security advisory) - a truely critical functionality problem + a truly critical functionality problem the package becomes uninstallable a released architecture lacks the package @@ -1127,7 +1542,7 @@ package should only be uploaded to stable if one of the following happens: 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" +specific patch from the new upstream version to the old one ("back-porting" the patch) is the right thing to do in most cases.

Packages uploaded to stable need to be compiled on systems running @@ -1139,65 +1554,80 @@ 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 +regularly evaluate the uploads in stable-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 testing-proposed-updates +

+The testing distribution is fed with packages from unstable according to the rules +explained in . However, the release manager may stop the testing +scripts when he wants to freeze the distribution. In that case, you may want to +upload to testing-proposed-updates to provide fixed packages during the freeze. +

+Keep in mind that packages uploaded there are not automatically processed, they +have to go through the hands of the release manager. So you'd better have a good +reason to upload there. In order to know what a good reason is in the +release manager's eyes, you should read the instructions that he regularly +gives on &email-debian-devel-announce;. +

+You should not upload to testing-proposed-updates when you can update your +packages through unstable. If you can't (for example because you have a +newer development version in unstable), you may use it but it is recommended to ask +the authorization of the release manager before. Uploading a package Uploading to ftp-master

To upload a package, you need a personal account on -ftp-master.debian.org, which you should have as an +&ftp-master-host;, which you should have as an official maintainer. If you use scp or rsync -to transfer the files, place them into &us-upload-dir;; +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 +&upload-queue;. 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 +all files have been uploaded. If you don't want to bother with transferring 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;. +&us-upload-dir;.

-Note: Do not upload to ftp-master packages -containing software that is patent-restricted by the United States -government, nor any cryptographic packages which belong to -contrib or non-free. If you can't upload it to -ftp-master, then neither can you upload it to the overseas -upload queues on chiark or erlangen. Uploads of +Note: Do not upload to ftp-master cryptographic +packages which belong to contrib or non-free. Uploads of such software should go to non-us (see ). If you are not sure whether U.S. patent -controls or cryptographic controls apply to your package, post a -message to &email-debian-devel; and ask. -

-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. They can also be configured to -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) +id="upload-non-us">). Furthermore packages containing code that is +patent-restricted by the United States government can not be uploaded to +ftp-master; depending on the case they may still be uploaded to +non-US/non-free (it's in non-free because of distribution issues +and not because of the license of the software). If you can't upload it to +ftp-master, then neither can you upload it to the overseas upload +queues on chiark or erlangen. If you are not sure +whether U.S. patent controls or cryptographic controls apply to your +package, post a message to &email-debian-devel; and ask. +

+You may also find the Debian packages or + useful +when uploading packages. These handy programs help automate the +process of uploading packages into Debian. +

+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. +Note that dput can do this for you automatically. + + Uploading to non-US

As discussed above, export controlled software should not be uploaded to ftp-master. Instead, upload the package to non-us.debian.org, placing the files in -&non-us-upload-dir; (both and can be used also, with the right invokation). By default, +&non-us-upload-dir; (again, both and can do this for you if invoked properly). 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/. +files into &upload-queue;.

You can check your upload the same way it's done on ftp-master, with: @@ -1235,7 +1665,7 @@ residents consult a lawyer before doing uploads to non-US. Uploads via chiark

If you have a slow network connection to ftp-master, there are -alternatives. One is to upload files to Incoming via a +alternatives. One is to upload files to Incoming via a upload queue in Europe on chiark. For details connect to .

@@ -1255,12 +1685,12 @@ Another upload queue is available in Germany: just upload the files via anonymous FTP to .

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

@@ -1298,8 +1728,8 @@ 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. +the archive maintenance software will contain the OpenPGP/GnuPG 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 @@ -1310,10 +1740,6 @@ If a package is released with the Distribution: set to 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 . Notification that a new package has been installed @@ -1328,8 +1754,8 @@ 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.

-In any case, you will receive email notification indicating that the -package has added to the archive, which also indicates which bugs will +In any case, you will receive an email notification indicating that the +package has been 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.

@@ -1374,10 +1800,10 @@ Under certain circumstances it is necessary for someone other than the official package maintainer to make a release of a package. This is called a non-maintainer upload, or NMU.

-Debian porters, who compile packages for different architectures, do -NMUs as part of their normal porting activity (see ). Another reason why NMUs are done is when a Debian -developers needs to fix another developers' packages in order to +Debian porters, who compile packages for different architectures, +occasionally do binary-only NMUs as part of their porting activity +(see ). Another reason why NMUs are done is when a +Debian developers needs to fix another developers' packages in order to address serious security problems or crippling bugs, especially during the freeze, or when the package maintainer is unable to release a fix in a timely fashion. @@ -1401,8 +1827,7 @@ 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. 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). +architecture-dependent packages, as well as an updated Debian diff.

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 @@ -1439,51 +1864,54 @@ distribution, i.e., stable, unstable, or experimental. Porters have slightly different rules than non-porters, due to their unique circumstances (see ).

-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, a security officer may upload a fixed -package (i.e., do a source NMU). +When a security bug is detected, the security team may do an NMU. +Please refer to for more information.

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. +id="nmu-guidelines"> need to be followed. Special exceptions are made +for .

-Bug fixes to unstable by non-maintainers are also acceptable, but only -as a last resort or with permission. Try the following steps first, -and if they don't work, it is probably OK to do an NMU: +Uploading bug fixes to unstable by non-maintainers should only be done +by following this protocol:

-Make sure that the package bug is in the Debian Bug Tracking System -(BTS). If not, submit a bug. - -Email the maintainer, and offer to help fix the package bug. Give it a -few days. +Make sure that the package's bugs that the NMU is meant to address are all +filed in the Debian Bug Tracking System (BTS). +If they are not, submit them immediately. -Go ahead and fix the bug, submitting a patch to the right bug in the -BTS. Build the package and test it as discussed in . Use it locally. - -Wait a couple of weeks for a response. - -Email the maintainer, asking if it is OK to do an NMU. +Wait a few days the response from the maintainer. If you don't get +any response, you may want to help him by sending the patch that fixes +the bug. Don't forget to tag the bug with the "patch" keyword. +Wait a few more days. If you still haven't got an answer from the +maintainer, send him a mail announcing your intent to NMU the package. +Prepare an NMU as described in , test it +carefully on your machine (cf. ). Double check that your patch doesn't have any unexpected side effects. -Make sure your patch is as small and as non-disruptive as it can be. +Make sure your patch is as small and as non-disruptive as it can be. -Wait another week for a response. +Upload your package to incoming in DELAYED/7-day (cf. +), send the final patch to the maintainer via +the BTS, and explain to them that they have 7 days to react if they want +to cancel the NMU. -Go ahead and do the source NMU, as described in . - - - +Follow what happens, you're responsible for any bug that you introduced +with your NMU. You should probably use (PTS) +to stay informed of the state of the package after your NMU. + +

+At times, the release manager or an organized group of developers can +announce a certain period of time in which the NMU rules are relaxed. +This usually involves shortening the period during which one is to wait +before uploading the fixes, and shortening the DELAYED period. It is +important to notice that even in these so-called "bug squashing party" +times, the NMU'er has to file bugs and contact the developer first, +and act later. How to do a source NMU

@@ -1531,17 +1959,7 @@ absolutely necessary for someone other than the usual maintainer to make a release based on a new upstream version then the person making the release should start with the debian-revision value `0.1'. The usual maintainer of a package should start their -debian-revision numbering at `1'. Note that if you do -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'). -

-Remember, porters who are simply recompiling a package for a different -architecture do not need to renumber. Porters should use new version -numbers if and only if they actually have to modify the source package -in some way, i.e., if they are doing a source NMU and not a binary -NMU. +debian-revision numbering at `1'. @@ -1566,16 +1984,12 @@ few changes to the package as possible, and they should always send a patch as a unified context diff (diff -u) detailing their changes to the Bug Tracking System.

-What if you are simply recompiling the package? In this case, the -process is different for porters than it is for non-porters, as -mentioned above. If you are not a porter and are doing an NMU that -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-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.) +What if you are simply recompiling the package? If you just need to +recompile it for a single architecture, then you may do a binary-only +NMU as described in which doesn't require any +patch to be sent. If you want the package to be recompiled for all +architectures, then you do a source NMU as usual and you will have to +send a patch.

If the source NMU (non-maintainer upload) fixes some existing bugs, these bugs should be tagged fixed in the Bug Tracking @@ -1592,13 +2006,14 @@ 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. +patch showing all the changes you have made. Alternatively you can send +that information to the existing bugs that are fixed by your NMU. +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. @@ -1609,15 +2024,30 @@ entry in the changelog file documenting the non-maintainer upload. Source NMU packages are built normally. Pick a distribution using the same rules as found in . Just as described in , a normal changes file, etc., will be built. In -fact, all the prescriptions from apply, including -the need to announce the NMU to the proper lists. +fact, all the prescriptions from apply.

Make sure you do not change the value of the maintainer in 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. - + Acknowledging an NMU +

+If one of your packages has been NMU'ed, you have to incorporate the +changes in your copy of the sources. This is easy, you just have +to apply the patch that has been sent to you. Once this is done, you +have to close the bugs that have been tagged fixed by the NMU. You +can either close them manually by sending the required mails to the +BTS or by adding the required closes: #nnnn in the changelog +entry of your next upload. +

+In any case, you should not be upset by the NMU. An NMU is not a +personal attack against the maintainer. It is a proof that +someone cares enough about the package and that they were willing to help +you in your work, so you should be thankful. You may also want to +ask them if they would be interested to help you on a more frequent +basis as co-maintainer or backup maintainer +(see ). Porting and Being Ported @@ -1633,7 +2063,7 @@ is different from the original architecture of the package maintainer's binary package. It is a unique and essential activity. In fact, porters do most of the actual compiling of Debian packages. For instance, for a single i386 binary package, there must be -a recompile for each architecture, which is amounts to +a recompile for each architecture, which amounts to &number-of-arches; more builds. @@ -1664,9 +2094,11 @@ 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 +dependencies mentioned in Build-Depends and/or Build-Depends-Indep. Finally, try building your package -within that chrooted environment. +within that chrooted environment. These steps can be automated +by the use of the pbuilder program which is provided by +the package of the same name.

See the for instructions on setting build dependencies. @@ -1679,7 +2111,7 @@ Manual">. 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 properly. Then, in there, try building your package from scratch with -dpkg-buildpackage. +dpkg-buildpackage. Make sure you don't ship your source package with the debian/files or debian/substvars files. @@ -1712,32 +2144,35 @@ 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-only NMU so +that case; it describes how to build and upload your binary package 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-only NMU, no real changes are being made to the source. You do +For a porter upload, no 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 -eporter-email. Of course, +dpkg-buildpackage -B -mporter-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 +binary-only build of only the architecture-dependent portions of the package, using the `binary-arch' target in debian/rules. - - Recompilation binary-only NMU versioning + + Recompilation or binary-only NMU

-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. +Sometimes the initial porter upload is problematic because the environment +in which the package was built was not good enough (outdated or obsolete +library, bad compiler, ...). Then you may just need to recompile it in +an updated 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 +(katie refuses to install new packages if they don't have a +version number greater than the currently available one). Despite the +required modification of the changelog, these are called 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 @@ -1774,7 +2209,7 @@ uploaded with no waiting period for the `frozen' distribution.

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 &mdash the time between when the +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 @@ -1827,7 +2262,7 @@ conjunction with auto-builders, 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 autobuilt) and work on it. +cannot yet be auto-built) and work on it.

buildd is not yet available as a package; however, most porting efforts are either using it currently or planning to use @@ -1860,13 +2295,53 @@ headers for cross-compiling in a way similar to enhanced to support cross-compiling. - + + Collaborative maintenance +

+"Collaborative maintenance" is a term describing the sharing of Debian +package maintenance duties by several people. This collaboration is +almost always a good idea, since it generally results in higher quality and +faster bug fix turnaround time. It is strongly recommended that +packages in which a priority of Standard or which are part of +the base set have co-maintainers.

+

+Generally there is a primary maintainer and one or more +co-maintainers. The primary maintainer is the whose name is listed in +the Maintainer field of the debian/control file. +Co-maintainers are all the other maintainers.

+

+In its most basic form, the process of adding a new co-maintainer is +quite easy: + +

+Setup the co-maintainer with access to the sources you build the +package from. Generally this implies you are using a network-capable +version control system, such as CVS or +Subversion.

+ + +

+Add the co-maintainer's correct maintainer name and address to the +Uploaders field in the global part of the +debian/control file. + +Uploaders: John Buzz <jbuzz@debian.org>, Adam Rex <arex@debian.org> + +

+ + +

+Using the PTS (), the co-maintainers +should subscribe themselves to the appropriate source package.

+ +

+ Moving, Removing, Renaming, Adopting, and Orphaning Packages

-Some archive manipulation operation are not automated in the Debian +Some archive manipulation operations are not automated in the Debian upload process. These procedures should be manually followed by maintainers. This chapter gives guidelines in what to do in these cases. @@ -1884,27 +2359,37 @@ 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 bug in the archive maintenance software. +name="Debian Policy Manual"> for details). If your new section is +valid, it will be moved automatically. If it does not, then contact +the ftpmasters in order to understand what happened.

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 +file of the package, and re-upload that. Also, you'll need to get the override file updated, as described in . 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 +is an old compatibility library which is no longer required), you need to file a bug against ftp.debian.org asking that the package be removed. Make sure you indicate which distribution the -package should be removed from. +package should be removed from. Normally, you can only have packages +removed from unstable and experimental. Packages +are not removed from testing directly. Rather, they will be +removed automatically after the package has been removed from +unstable and no package in testing depends on it. +

+You also have to detail the reasons justifying that request. This is to +avoid unwanted removals and to keep a trace of why a package has been +removed. For example, you can provide the name of the package that +supersedes the one to be removed. +

+Usually you only ask the removal of a package maintained by yourself. +If you want to remove another package, you have to get the approval +of its last maintainer.

If in doubt concerning whether a package is disposable, email &email-debian-devel; asking for opinions. Also of interest is the @@ -1912,11 +2397,17 @@ If in doubt concerning whether a package is disposable, email package. When invoked as apt-cache showpkg package, the program will show details for package, including reverse depends. +

+Once the package has been removed, the package's bugs should be handled. +They should either be reassigned to another package in the case where +the actual code has evolved into another package (e.g. libfoo12 +was removed because libfoo13 supersedes it) or closed if the +software is simply no more part of Debian. - Removing packages from Incoming + Removing packages from Incoming

-In the past, it was possible to remove packages from incoming. -With the introduction of the New Incoming system this is no longer +In the past, it was possible to remove packages from incoming. +However, 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 @@ -1931,15 +2422,27 @@ 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 -that package, and the package has moved into the archive, file a bug +the 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. +obsolete name. Do not forget to properly reassign the package's bugs +at the same time. +

+At other times, you may make a mistake in constructing your package and +wish to replace it. The only way to do this is to increase the version +number and upload a new version. The old version will be expired in +the usual manner. Note that this applies to each part of your package, +including the sources: if you wish to replace the upstream source tarball +of your package, you will need to upload it with a different version. An +easy possibility is to replace foo_1.00.orig.tar.gz with +foo_1.00+0.orig.tar.gz. This restriction gives each file +on the ftp site a unique name, which helps to ensure consistency across the +mirror network. Orphaning a package

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 +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 @@ -1950,10 +2453,11 @@ 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 -- +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. +important. RFA stands for Request For Adoption. +Definitely copy the message to debian-devel in this case, as described +above.

Read instructions on the for more information. @@ -1972,28 +2476,37 @@ 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 &email-debian-private;. +without leave), post a query to &email-debian-private;. You may also +inform the QA group (cf. ).

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 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. - +you can use to get the bug reports. However, +make sure that the old maintainer has no problem with the fact that +they will continue to receive the bugs during that time. Handling package 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 + can tell you how +to do this. Some information on filing bugs can be found in . 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. +You can check them by browsing this page: +http://&bugs-host;/yourlogin@debian.org.

Maintainers interact with the BTS via email addresses at -bugs.debian.org. Documentation on available commands can be +&bugs-host;. Documentation on available commands can be found at , or, if you have installed the doc-debian package, you can look at the local files &file-bts-docs;. @@ -2005,36 +2518,342 @@ outlining all the open bugs against your packages: # ask for weekly reports of bugs in my packages &cron-bug-report; -Replace address with you official Debian +Replace address with your official Debian maintainer address. Responding to bugs

-Make sure that any discussions you have about bugs are sent both to +Make sure that any discussion you have about bugs are sent both to the original submitter of the bug, and the bug itself (e.g., +123@bugs.debian.org). If you're writing a new +mail and you don't remember the submitter email address, you can +use the 123-submitter@bugs.debian.org email to +contact the submitter and to record your mail within the +bug log (that means you don't need to send a copy of the mail to 123@bugs.debian.org).

-You should never close bugs via the bug server `close' +Once you've dealt with a bug report (e.g. fixed it), mark it as +done (close it) by sending an explanation message to +123-done@bugs.debian.org. If you're fixing a bug by +changing and uploading the package, you can automate bug closing as +described in . +

+You should never close bugs via the bug server close command sent to &email-bts-control;. If you do so, the original -submitter will not receive any feedback on why the bug was closed. +submitter will not receive any information about why the bug was +closed. Bug housekeeping

As a package maintainer, you will often find bugs in other packages or have bugs reported against your packages which are actually bugs in -other packages. The document the technical operation of the BTS, such as -how to file, reassign, merge, and tag bugs. This section contains +other packages. The bug tracking system's features interesting to developers +are described in the . Operations such as reassigning, merging, and tagging +bug reports are described in the . This section contains some guidelines for managing your own bugs, based on the collective Debian developer experience.

Filing bugs for problems that you find in other packages is one of the "civic obligations" of maintainership, see -for details. +for details. However, handling the bugs in your own packages is +even more important. +

+Here's a list of steps that you may follow to handle a bug report: + + +Decide whether the report corresponds to a real bug or not. Sometimes +users are just calling a program in the wrong way because they haven't +read the documentation. If you diagnose this, just close the bug with +enough information to let the user correct his problem (give pointers +to the good documentation and so on). If the same report comes up +again and again you may ask yourself if the documentation is good +enough or if the program shouldn't detect its misuse in order to +give an informative error message. This is an issue that may need +to be brought to the upstream author. +

+If the bug submitter disagree with your decision to close the bug, +they may reopen it until you find an agreement on how to handle it. +If you don't find any, you may want to tag the bug wontfix +to let people know that the bug exists but that it won't be corrected. +If this situation is unacceptable, you (or the submitter) may want to +require a decision of the technical committee by reassigning the bug +to tech-ctte (you may use the clone command of +the BTS if you wish to keep it reported against your package). Before +doing so, please read the . + +If the bug is real but it's caused by another package, just reassign +the bug the right package. If you don't know which package it should +be reassigned to, you may either ask for help on &email-debian-devel; or +reassign it to debian-policy to let them decide which +package is in fault. +

+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 be dropped to wishlist severity when the requested +change is just cosmetic. + +The bug submitter may have forgotten to provide some information, in that +case you have to ask him the information required. You may use the +moreinfo tag to mark the bug as such. Moreover if you can't +reproduce the bug, you tag it unreproducible. Anyone who +can reproduce the bug is then invited to provide more information +on how to reproduce it. After a few months, if this information has not +been sent by someone, the bug may be closed. + +If the bug is related to the packaging, you just fix it. If you are not +able to fix it yourself, then tag the bug as help. You can +also ask for help on &email-debian-devel; or &email-debian-qa;. If it's an +upstream problem, you have to forward it to the upstream author. +Forwarding a bug is not enough, you have to check at each release if +the bug has been fixed or not. If it has, you just close it, otherwise +you have to remind the author about it. If you have the required skills +you can prepare a patch that fixes the bug and that you send at the +same time to the author. Make sure to send the patch in the BTS and to +tag the bug as patch. + +If you have fixed a bug in your local copy, or if a fix has been +committed to the CVS repository, you may tag the bug as +pending to let people know that the bug is corrected and that +it will be closed with the next upload (add the closes: in +the changelog). This is particularly useful if you +are several developers working on the same package. + +Once a corrected package is available in the unstable +distribution, you can close the bug. This can be done automatically, +read . + + + Handling security-related bugs

-&FIXME;Talk about tags, forwarding bugs, or else break it into -different sections... +Due to their sensitive nature, security-related bugs must be handled +carefully. The Debian Security Team exists to coordinate this +activity, keeping track of outstanding security problems, helping +maintainers with security problems or fix them themselves, sending +security advisories, and maintaining security.debian.org. + + + + + What to do when you learn of a + security problem +

+When you become aware of a security-related bug in a Debian package, +whether or not you are the maintainer, collect pertinent information +about the problem, and promptly contact the security team at +&email-security-team;. +Useful information includes, for example: + + + What 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. + + The nature of the fix, if any is available (patches are + especially helpful) + + Any fixed packages that you have prepared yourself (send only + the .diff.gz and .dsc files) + Any information needed for the advisory (see ) + + + + Confidentiality +

+Unlike most other activities within Debian, information about security +issues must sometimes be kept private for a time. Whether this is the +case depends on the nature of the problem and corresponding fix, and +whether it is already a matter of public knowledge. +

+There are a few ways a developer can learn of a security problem: + + + he notices it on a public forum (mailing list, web site, etc.) + someone files a bug report + someone informs him via private email + + + In the first two cases, the information is public and it is important + to have a fix as soon as possible. In the last case, however, it + might not be public information. In that case there are a few + possible options for dealing with the problem: + + + if it is a trivial problem (like insecure temporary files) + there is no need to keep the problem a secret and a fix should be + made and released. + + if the problem is severe (remotely exploitable, possibility to + gain root privileges) it is preferable to share the information with + other vendors and coordinate a release. The security team keeps + contacts with the various organizations and individuals and can take + care of that. + + +

+ In all cases if the person who reports the problem asks to not + disclose the information that should be respected, with the obvious + exception of informing the security team (make sure you tell the + security team that the information can not be disclosed). + +

+Please note that if secrecy is needed you can also not upload a fix to +unstable (or anywhere else), since the changelog and diff information +for unstable is public. + +

+There are two reasons for releasing information even though secrecy is +requested: the problem has been known for a while, or that the problem +or exploit has become public. + + Security Advisories +

+Security advisories are only issued for the current, released stable +distribution, not for testing or unstable. When released, advisories +are sent to the &email-debian-security-announce; +mailing list and posted on . +Security advisories are written and posted by the security +team. However they certainly do not mind if a maintainer can supply +some of the information for them, or write part of the +text. Information that should be in an advisory includes: + + + A description of the problem and its scope, including: + + The type of problem (privilege escalation, denial of + service, etc.) + How it can be exploited + Whether it is remotely or locally exploitable + How the problem was fixed + + Version numbers of affected packages + Version numbers of fixed packages + Information on where to obtain the updated packages + References to upstream advisories, identifiers, and any other + information useful in cross-referencing the vulnerability + + + + Preparing packages to address security issues +

+One way that you can assist the security team in their duties is to +provide fixed packages suitable for a security advisory for the stable +Debian release. +

+ When an update is made to the stable release, care must be taken to + avoid changing system behavior or introducing new bugs. In order to + do this, make as few changes as possible to fix the bug. Users and + administrators rely on the exact behavior of a release once it is + made, so any change that is made might break someone's system. + This is especially true of libraries: make sure you never change the + API or ABI, no matter how small the change. +

+This means that moving to a new upstream version is not a good +solution. Instead, the relevant changes should be back-ported to the +version present in the current stable Debian release. Generally, +upstream maintainers are willing to help if needed. If not, the +Debian security team may be able to help. +

+In some cases, it is not possible to back-port a security fix, for +example when large amounts of source code need to be modified or +rewritten. If this happens, it may be necessary to move to a new +upstream version. However, you must always coordinate that with the +security team beforehand. +

+Related to this is another important guideline: always test your +changes. If you have an exploit available, try it and see if it +indeed succeeds on the unpatched package and fails on the fixed +package. Test other, normal actions as well, as sometimes a security +fix can break seemingly unrelated features in subtle ways. +

+Review and test your changes as much as possible. Check the +differences from the previous version repeatedly +(interdiff and debdiff are useful tools for +this). + +When packaging the fix, keep the following points in mind: + + + Make sure you target the right distribution in your + debian/changelog. For stable this is stable-security and for + testing this is testing-security, and for the previous + stable release, this is oldstable-security. Do not target + distribution-proposed-updates! + + Make sure the version number is proper. It must be greater + than the current package, but less than package versions in later + distributions. If in doubt, test it with dpkg + --compare-versions. For testing, there must be + a higher version in unstable. If there is none yet (for example, + if testing and unstable have the same version) you must upload a + new version to unstable first. + + Do not make source-only uploads if your package has any + binary-all packages (do not use the -S option to + dpkg-buildpackage). The buildd infrastructure will + not build those. This point applies to normal package uploads as + well. + + If the upstream source has been uploaded to + security.debian.org before (by a previous security update), build + the upload without the upstream source (dpkg-buildpackage + -sd). Otherwise, build with full source + (dpkg-buildpackage -sa). + + Be sure to use the exact same *.orig.tar.gz as used in the + normal archive, otherwise it is not possible to move the security + fix into the main archives later. + + Be sure, when compiling a package, to compile on a clean + system which only has packages installed from the distribution you + are building for. If you do not have such a system yourself, you + can use a debian.org machine (see ) + or setup a chroot (see and + ). + + + Uploading the fixed package +

+DO NOT upload a package to the security upload queue 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. +

+DO NOT 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 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 instead. +

+Once you have created and tested the new package and it has been +approved by the security team, it needs to be uploaded so that it can +be installed in the archives. For security uploads, the place to +upload to is +ftp://security.debian.org/pub/SecurityUploadQueue/ . + +

+Once an upload to the security queue has been accepted, the package +will automatically be rebuilt for all architectures and stored for +verification by the security team. + +

+Uploads which are waiting for acceptance or verification are only +accessible by the security team. This is necessary since there might +be fixes for security problems that cannot be disclosed yet. + +

+If a member of the security team accepts a package, it will be +installed on security.debian.org as well as the proper +distribution-proposed-updates on ftp-master or in the non-US +archive. When bugs are closed by new uploads

@@ -2045,17 +2864,18 @@ 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.

-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: +However, it's possible to avoid having to manually close bugs after the +upload -- just list the fixed bugs in your debian/changelog +file, following a certain syntax, and the archive maintenance software +will close the bugs for you. For example: + 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. + * Added man page. Closes: #98725. Technically speaking, the following Perl regular expression is what is @@ -2064,24 +2884,340 @@ 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. +The author prefers the closes: #XXX syntax, as +one of the most concise and easiest to integrate with the text of the +changelog.

-If you want to close bugs the old fashioned, manual way, it is usually -sufficient to mail the .changes file to +If you happen to mistype a bug number or forget one in the changelog file, +don't hesitate to undo any damage the error caused. To reopen wrongly closed +bugs, send an reopen XXX command in the bug tracking +system's control bot. To close any remaining bugs that were fixed by your +upload, email the .changes file to XXX-done@bugs.debian.org, where XXX is your bug number. +

+Bear in mind that it is not obligatory to close bugs using the changelog +like described above -- if you simply want to close bugs that don't have +anything to do with an upload of yours, do it simply by emailing an +explanation to XXX-done@bugs.debian.org. - Lintian reports + + + + Best Packaging Practices +

+Debian's quality is largely due to the , which defines explicit baseline requirements +which all Debian packages must fulfill. Yet there is also a shared +history of experience which goes beyond the Debian Policy, an +accumulatation of years of experience in packaging. Many very +talented people have created great tools, tools which help you, the +Debian maintainer, create and maintain excellent packages. +

+This chapter provides some best practices for Debian developers. All +recommendations are merely that, and are not requirements or policy. +These are just some subjective hints, advice and pointers collected +from Debian developers. Feel free to pick and choose whatever works +best for you. + + + Best Practices for debian/rules +

+The following recommendations apply to the debian/rules +file. Since debian/rules controls the build process and +selects the files which go into the package (directly or indirectly), +it's usually the file maintainers spend the most time on. + + Helper scripts +

+The rationale for using helper scripts in debian/rules is +that lets maintainers use and share common logic among many packages. +Take for instance the question of installing menu entries: you need to +put the file into /usr/lib/menu, and add commands to the +maintainer scripts to register and unregister the menu entries. Since +this is a very common thing for packages to do, why should each +maintainer rewrite all this on their own, sometimes with bugs? Also, +supposing the menu directory changed, every package would have to be +changed. +

+Helper scripts take care of these issues. Assuming you comply with +the conventions expected by the helper script, the helper takes care +of all the details. Changes in policy can be made in the helper +script, then packages just need to be rebuilt with the new version of +the helper and no other changes. +

+ contains a couple of different helpers. The most +common and best (in our opinion) helper system is +debhelper. Previous helper systems, such as +debmake, were "monolithic": you couldn't pick and +choose which part of the helper you found useful, but had to use the +helper to do everything. debhelper, however, is a +number of seperate little dh_* programs. For instance, +dh_installman installs and compresses manpages, +dh_installmenu installs menu files, and so on. Thus, it +offers enough flexibility to be able to use the little helper scripts, +where useful, in conjunction with hand-crafted commands in +debian/rules.

-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. +You can get started with debhelper by reading +, and looking at the examples +that come with the package. dh_make, from the +dh-make package (see ), can be +used to convert a "vanilla" source package to a +debhelperized package. This shortcut, though, +should not convince you that you do not need to bother understanding +the individual dh_* helpers. If you are going to use a +helper, you do need to take the time to learn to use that helper, to +learn its expectations and behavior. +

+Some people feel that vanilla debian/rules files are +better, since you don't have to learn the intricies of any helper +system. This decision is completely up to you. Use what works for +you. Many examples of vanilla debian/rules files are +available at . + + + + Patching source versus patching at build time +

+Big, complex packages may have many bugs that you need to deal with. +If you correct a number of bug directly in the source, if you're not +careful, it can get hard to differentiate the various patches that you +applied. It can get quite messy when you have to update the package +to a new upstream version which integrates some of the fixes (but not +all). You can't take the total set of diffs (e.g., from +.diff.gz) and work out which patch sets to back out as a +unit as bugs are fixed upstream. +

+One good solution is to keep separate patches under the +debian directory and apply the patches at build time. The +dbs package provides an convenient means for +applying patches at build time (and unapplying them at clean time). +dbs also provides facilities for creating the +patches and keeping track of what they are for. As always when using +maintainer tools, you'll have to read the accompanying documentation. +The package hello-dbs is a simple example that +demonstrates how to use dbs. + + + Multiple binary packages +

+A single source package will often build several binary packages, +either to provide several flavors of the same software (examples are +the vim-* packages) or to make several small +packages instead of a big one (e.g., if the user can install only the +subset she needs, and thus save some disk space). +

+The second case can be easily managed in debian/rules. +You just need to move the appropriate files from the build directory +into the package's temporary trees. You can do this using +install (vanilla approach) or dh_install +(from debhelper). Be sure to check the different +permutations of the various packages, ensuring that you have the +inter-package dependancies set right in debian/control. +

+The first case is a bit more difficult since it involves multiple +recompiles of the same software but with different configure +options. The vim is an example of how to manage +this using an hand-crafted debian/rules file. + + + + + + + + + Configuration management with debconf + +

+Debconf is a configuration management system which +can be used by all the various packaging scripts +(postinst mainly) to request feedback from the user +concerning how to configure the package. Direct user interactions must +now be avoided in favor of debconf +interaction. This will enable non-interactive installations in the +future. +

+Debconf is a great tool but it is often poorly used. Many common mistakes +are listed in the man page. +It is something that you must read if you decide to use debconf. + + + + + Internationalization + + + Handling debconf translations +

+Like porters, translators have a difficult task. They work on many +packages and must collaborate with many different +maintainers. Moreover, most of the time, they are not native English +speakers, so you may need to be particularly patient with them. +

+The goal of debconf was to make packages +configuration easier for maintainers and for users. Originally, +translation of debconf templates was handled with +debconf-mergetemplate. However, that technique is now +deprecated; the best way to accomplish debconf +internationalization is by using the po-debconf +package. This method is easier both for maintainer and translators; +transition scripts are provided. +

+Using po-debconf, the translation is stored in +po files (drawing from gettext translation +techniques). Special template files contain the original messages and +mark which fields are translatable. When you change the value of a +translatable field, by calling debconf-updatepo, the +translation is marked as needing attention from the translators. Then, +at build time, the dh_installdebconf program takes care +of all the needed magic to add the template along with the up-to-date +translations into the binary packages. Refer to the manual page for details. + + + + Internationalized Documentation +

+Internationalizing documentation is crucial for users, but a lot of +labor. There's no way to eliminate all that work, but you can make things +easier for translators. +

+If you maintain documentation of any size, its easier for translators +if they have access to a source control system. That lets translators +see the differences between two versions of the documentation, so, for +instance, they can see what needs to be retranslated. It is +recommended that the translated documentation maintain a note about +what source control revision the translation is based on. An +interesting system is provided by in the boot-floppies package, +which shows an overview of the translation status for any given +language, using structured comments for the current revision of the +file to be translated and, for a translated file, the revision of the +original file the translation is based on. You might wish to adapt +and provide that in your CVS area. +

+If you maintain XML or SGML documentation, we suggest that you isolate +any language-independant information and define those as entities in a +separate file which is included by all the different +translations. This makes it much easier, for instance, to keep URLs +up-to-date across multiple files. + + + + + Common Situations + + + + + Packages using + autoconf/automake +

+Keeping autoconf's config.sub and +config.guess files up-to-date is critical for porters, +especially on more volatile architectures. Some very good packaging +practices for any package using autoconf and/or +automake have been synthesized in +&file-bpp-autotools;. You're strongly encouraged to read this file and +to follow the given recommendations. + + + Libraries +

+Libraries are always difficult to package for various reasons. The policy +imposes many constraints to ease their maintenance and to make sure +upgrades are as simple as possible when a new upstream version comes out. +A breakage in a library can result in dozens of dependent packages +breaking. +

+Good practices for library packaging have been grouped in +. + + Other specific packages +

+Several subsets of packages have special sub-policies and corresponding +packaging rules and practices: + + +Perl related packages have a , +some examples of packages following that policy are +libdbd-pg-perl (binary perl module) or +libmldbm-perl (arch independent perl module). + +Python related packages have their python policy: +&file-python-policy; (in the python package). + +Emacs related packages have the . + +Java related packages have their . + +Ocaml related packages have their Ocaml policy: &file-ocaml-policy; (in +the ocaml package). A good example is the camlzip +source package. + + + + + + + + Miscellaneous advice + + + Writing useful descriptions +

+The description of the package (as defined by the corresponding field +in the control file) is usually the first information +available to the user before they install it. As such, it should +provide all the required information to let him decide whether +to install the package. +

+For example, apart from the usual description that you adapt from the +upstream README, you should include the URL of the +web site if there's any. If the package is not yet considered stable +by the author, you may also want to warn the user that the +package is not ready for production use. +

+For consistency and for an aesthetic concern, you should capitalize the +first letter of the description. +

+Last but not least, since the first user impression is based on +that description, you should be careful to avoid English +mistakes. Ensure that you spell check it. +ispell has a special option (-g) for that: +ispell -d american -g debian/control. +If you want someone to proofread the description that you +intend to use you may ask on &email-debian-l10n-english;. + @@ -2089,21 +3225,23 @@ latest lintian.

Debian is about a lot more than just packaging software and maintaining those packages. This chapter contains information about -ways, often really critical ways, to contribute to Debian beyond the +ways, often really critical ways, to contribute to Debian beyond simply creating and maintaining packages.

As a volunteer organization, Debian relies on the discretion of its -members in choosing what they want to work on, and choosing what is +members in choosing what they want to work on and in choosing the most critical thing to spend their time on. Bug Reporting

-We encourage you to file bugs as you find them in Debian packages. +We encourage you to file bugs as you find them in Debian packages. In +fact, Debian developers are often the first line testers. Finding and +reporting bugs in other developer's packages improves the quality of +Debian.

-Try to submit -the bug from a normal user account at which you are likely to receive -mail. Do not submit bugs as root. +Try to submit the bug from a normal user account at which you are +likely to receive mail. Do not submit bugs as root.

Make sure the bug is not already filed against a package. Try to do a good job reporting a bug and redirecting it to the proper location. @@ -2113,11 +3251,17 @@ which are reported more than once, or setting bug severities to neither the bug submitter nor the package maintainer, you should not actually close the bug (unless you secure permission from the maintainer). +

+From time to time you may want to check what has been going on +with the bug reports that you submitted. Take this opportunity to +close those that you can't reproduce anymore. To find +out all the bugs you submitted, you just have to visit +http://&bugs-host;/from:<your-email-addr>. Reporting lots of bugs at once

Reporting a great number of bugs for the same problem on a great -number of different packages &mdash i.e., more than 10 &mdash is a deprecated +number of different packages — i.e., more than 10 — 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 @@ -2137,16 +3281,47 @@ list. Quality Assurance effort + + Daily work

Even though there is a dedicated group of people for Quality Assurance, QA duties are not reserved solely for them. You can participate in this effort by keeping your packages as bug-free as -possible, and as lintian-clean (see ) as +possible, and as lintian-clean (see ) as possible. If you do not find that possible, then you should consider orphaning some of your packages (see ). Alternatively, you may ask the help of other people in order to catch up the backlog of bugs that you have (you can ask -for help on &email-debian-qa; or &email-debian-devel;). +for help on &email-debian-qa; or &email-debian-devel;). At the same +time, you can look for co-maintainers (see ). + + Bug Squashing Parties +

+From time to time the QA group organizes bug squashing parties to get rid of +as many problems as possible. They are announced on &email-debian-devel-announce; +and the announce explains what area will be focused on during the party: +usually they focus on release critical bugs but it may happen that they +decide to help finish a major upgrade going on (like a new perl version +which requires recompilation of all the binary modules). +

+The rules for non-maintainer uploads differ during the parties because +the announce of the party is considered like a prior notice for NMU. If +you have packages that may be affected by the party (because they have +release critical bugs for example), you should send an update to each of +the corresponding bug to explain their current status and what you expect +from the party. If you don't want an NMU, or if you're only interested in a +patch, or if you will deal yourself with the bug, please explain that in +the BTS. +

+People participating in the party have special rules for NMU, they can +NMU without prior notice if they upload their NMU to +DELAYED/3-day at least. All other NMU rules applies as usually, they +should send the patch of the NMU in the BTS (in one of the open bugs +fixed by the NMU or in a new bug tagged fixed). They should +also respect the maintainer's wishes if he expressed some. +

+If someone doesn't feel confident with an NMU, he should just send a patch +to the BTS. It's far better than a broken NMU. Dealing with unreachable maintainers

@@ -2158,21 +3333,39 @@ If you do not get a reply after a few weeks you should collect all useful information about this maintainer. Start by logging into the and doing a full search to check whether the maintainer is on vacation -and when he was last seen. Collect any important package names -he maintains and any Release Critical bugs filled against them. +and when they were last seen. Collect any important package names +they maintain and any Release Critical bugs filed against them.

Send all this information to &email-debian-qa;, in order to let the QA people do whatever is needed. - + Contacting other maintainers +

+During your lifetime within Debian, you will have to contact other +maintainers for various reasons. You may want to discuss a new +way of cooperating between a set of related packages, or you may +simply remind someone that a new upstream version is available +and that you need it. +

+Looking up the email address of the maintainer for the package can be +distracting. Fortunately, there is a simple email alias, +<package>@&packages-host;, which provides a way to +email the maintainer, whatever their individual email address (or +addresses) may be. Replace <package> with the name of +a source or a binary package. +

+You may also be interested in contacting the persons who are +subscribed to a given source package via . +You can do so by using the <package-name>@&pts-host; +email address. Interacting with prospective Debian developers

-Debian's success depends on it's ability to attract and retain new and +Debian's success depends on its ability to attract and retain new and talented volunteers. If you are an experienced developer, we -recommend that you get involved with the process of brining in new +recommend that you get involved with the process of bringing in new developers. This section describes how to help new prospective developers. @@ -2189,7 +3382,7 @@ id="&url-sponsors;">. 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 +(Note that if the sponsored package is new, the ftpmasters will also have to inspect it before letting it in.)

Sponsoring merely by signing the upload or just recompiling is @@ -2199,9 +3392,43 @@ 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 +be their sponsor. That way you can also verify how the applicant is handling the 'Tasks and Skills' part of their application. + Managing sponsored packages +

+By uploading a sponsored package to Debian, you are certifying that +the package meets minimum Debian standards. That implies that you +must build and test the package on your own system before uploading. +

+You can not simply upload a binary .deb from the sponsoree. In +theory, you should only ask for the diff file and the location of the +original source tarball, and then you should download the source and apply +the diff yourself. In practice, you may want to use the source package +built by your sponsoree. In that case, you have to check that they haven't +altered the upstream files in the .orig.tar.gz file that +they're providing. +

+Do not be afraid to write the sponsoree back and point out changes +that need to be made. It often takes several rounds of back-and-forth +email before the package is in acceptable shape. Being a sponsor +means being a mentor. +

+Once the package meets Debian standards, build the package with +dpkg-buildpackage -us -uc and sign it +with debsign -m"FULLNAME email-addr" changes-file +before uploading it to the incoming directory. +

+The Maintainer field of the control file and the +changelog should list the person who did the packaging, i.e. the +sponsoree. The sponsoree will therefore get all the BTS mail about the +package. +

+If you prefer to leave a more evident trace of your sponsorship job, you +can add a line stating it in the most recent changelog entry. +

+You are encouraged to keep tabs on the package you sponsor using +. Advocating new developers

@@ -2235,7 +3462,7 @@ 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. You can also see more info with the -command apt-cache show package_name. +command apt-cache show <package-name>. @@ -2253,9 +3480,20 @@ they are required for any Debian maintainer.

Lintian dissects Debian packages and reports bugs and policy violations. It contains automated checks for many aspects -of Debian policy as well as some checks for common errors. The use of -lintian has already been discussed in and . +of Debian policy as well as some checks for common errors. +

+You should periodically get the newest lintian from +`unstable' and check over all your packages. Notice that the -i +option provides detailed explanations of what each error or warning means, +what is its basis in Policy, and commonly how you can fix the problem. +

+Refer to for more information on how and when +to use Lintian. +

+You can also see a summary of all problems reported by Lintian on your +packages at . Those reports contain the latest +lintian output on the whole development distribution +("unstable"). @@ -2263,7 +3501,7 @@ id="upload-checking"> and .

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

@@ -2313,6 +3551,21 @@ favor of debhelper. However, it's not a bug to use debmake. + + dh-make +

+The +While the rules files generated by yada

@@ -2346,7 +3599,7 @@ changes into the repository.

These utilities provide an infrastructure to facilitate the use of CVS by Debian maintainers. This allows one to keep separate CVS branches -of a package for stable, unstable, and possibly +of a package for stable, unstable and possibly experimental distributions, along with the other benefits of a version control system. @@ -2354,7 +3607,7 @@ a version control system. dupload

-dupload is a package and a script to automagically +dupload is a package and a script to automatically upload Debian packages to the Debian archive, to log the upload, and to send mail about the upload of a package. You can configure it for new upload locations or methods. @@ -2367,7 +3620,7 @@ 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 +possibility of running dinstall in dry-run mode after the upload. @@ -2385,7 +3638,7 @@ user: dpkg-buildpackage -rfakeroot. debootstrap

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

@@ -2395,16 +3648,29 @@ depends. Or, you can test how your package behaves when installed into a bare base system. + + pbuilder +

+pbuilder constructs a chrooted system, and builds +a package inside the chroot. It is very useful to check that +a package's build-dependencies are correct, and to be sure that +unnecessary and wrong build dependencies will not exist in the +resulting package. + + devscripts

devscripts is a package containing a few wrappers -and tools which you may find helpful for maintaining your Debian +and tools which are very helpful for maintaining your Debian 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. - +wrapper around dpkg-buildpackage. The bts +utility is also very helpful to update the state of bug reports on the +command line, as is uscan to watch for new upstream +versions of your packages. Check the devscripts(1) manual +page for a complete list of available scripts. @@ -2423,7 +3689,7 @@ finalizing a version and listing the package's current bugs. 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 (although -apt-get source package does pretty much the same +apt-get source <package-name> does pretty much the same thing). @@ -2432,7 +3698,7 @@ thing). alien dpkg-repack grep-dctrl - pbuilder --> +-->