X-Git-Url: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/ucgi/~ianmdlvl/git?p=developers-reference.git;a=blobdiff_plain;f=pkgs.dbk;h=873c42c4e7d0678c609153727434f581e58401f8;hp=03d05bc639aaa2065b9902e0e05d44e471f1c484;hb=192df44824cca867c032346c74c654dfe40974f0;hpb=bef603592e140468f6f16b451fabc5b98d825929
diff --git a/pkgs.dbk b/pkgs.dbk
index 03d05bc..873c42c 100644
--- a/pkgs.dbk
+++ b/pkgs.dbk
@@ -21,30 +21,41 @@ pages for more information.
Assuming no one else is already working on your prospective package, you must
-then submit a bug report ( ) against the
+then submit a bug report () against the
pseudo-package wnpp describing your
plan to create a new package, including, but not limiting yourself to, a
description of the package, the license of the prospective package, and the
current URL where it can be downloaded from.
-You should set the subject of the bug to ``ITP: foo
--- short description'', substituting the name of the
-new package for foo. The severity of the bug report
-must be set to wishlist. If you feel it's necessary, send
-a copy to &email-debian-devel; by putting the address in the
-X-Debbugs-CC: header of the message (no, don't use
-CC:, because that way the message's subject won't indicate
-the bug number).
+You should set the subject of the bug to ITP:
+foo -- short
+description, substituting the name of the new
+package for foo.
+The severity of the bug report must be set to wishlist.
+Please send a copy to &email-debian-devel; by using the X-Debbugs-CC
+header (don't use CC:, because that way the message's subject won't
+indicate the bug number). If you are packaging so many new packages (>10)
+that notifying the mailing list in separate messages is too disruptive,
+send a summary after filing the bugs to the debian-devel list instead.
+This will inform the other developers about upcoming packages and will
+allow a review of your description and package name.
-Please include a Closes:
-bug#nnnnn entry in the changelog of the
-new package in order for the bug report to be automatically closed once the new
-package is installed in the archive (see ).
+Please include a Closes: #nnnnn
+entry in the changelog of the new package in order for the bug report to
+be automatically closed once the new package is installed in the archive
+(see ).
-When closing security bugs include CVE numbers as well as the Closes: #nnnnn.
+If you think your package needs some explanations for the administrators of the
+NEW package queue, include them in your changelog, send to &email-ftpmaster;
+a reply to the email you receive as a maintainer after your upload, or reply to
+the rejection email in case you are already re-uploading.
+
+
+When closing security bugs include CVE numbers as well as the
+Closes: #nnnnn.
This is useful for the security team to track vulnerabilities. If an upload is
made to fix the bug before the advisory ID is known, it is encouraged to modify
the historical changelog entry with the next upload. Even in this case, please
@@ -72,13 +83,13 @@ already is a volunteer, so efforts may be shared.
It lets the rest of the maintainers know more about the package than the one
line description and the usual changelog entry ``Initial release'' that gets
-posted to debian-devel-changes.
+posted to &email-debian-devel-changes;.
-It is helpful to the people who live off unstable (and form our first line of
-testers). We should encourage these people.
+It is helpful to the people who live off unstable (and form
+our first line of testers). We should encourage these people.
@@ -111,28 +122,28 @@ for native packages.
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
+linkend="distribution"/>. More information about the structure of this file
can be found in the Debian Policy section titled
debian/changelog.
Changelog entries can be used to automatically close Debian bugs when the
-package is installed into the archive. See .
+package is installed into the archive. See .
It is conventional that the changelog entry of a package that contains a new
upstream version of the software looks like this:
- * new upstream version
+ * New upstream release.
There are tools to help you create entries and finalize the
changelog for release â see
-and .
+and .
-See also .
+See also .
@@ -163,16 +174,16 @@ output a very verbose description of the problem.
Normally, a package should not be uploaded if it causes
-lintian to emit errors (they will start with E).
+lintian to emit errors (they will start with E).
For more information on lintian, see .
+linkend="lintian"/>.
-Optionally run to analyze changes from an older
+Optionally run debdiff (see ) to analyze changes from an older
version, if one exists.
@@ -192,7 +203,7 @@ Remove the package, then reinstall it.
Copy the source package in a different directory and try unpacking it and
rebuilding it. This tests if the package relies on existing files outside of
it, or if it relies on permissions being preserved on the files shipped inside
-the .diff.gz file.
+the .diff.gz file.
@@ -213,23 +224,25 @@ distinction between the original sources and the patches applied for Debian
the (more common) packages where there's an original source tarball file
-accompanied by another file that contains the patches applied for Debian
+accompanied by another file that contains the changes made by Debian
For the native packages, the source package includes a Debian source control
-file (.dsc) and the source tarball
-(.tar.gz). A source package of a non-native package
+file (.dsc) and the source tarball
+(.tar.{gz,bz2,xz}). A source package of a non-native package
includes a Debian source control file, the original source tarball
-(.orig.tar.gz) and the Debian patches
-(.diff.gz).
+(.orig.tar.{gz,bz2,xz}) and the Debian changes
+(.diff.gz for the source format â1.0â or
+.debian.tar.{gz,bz2,xz} for the source format â3.0 (quilt)â).
-Whether a package is native or not is determined when it is built by
-dpkg-buildpackage
-1. The rest of this section relates
-only to non-native packages.
+With source format â1.0â, whether a package is native or not was determined
+by dpkg-source at build time. Nowadays it is recommended
+to be explicit about the desired source format by putting either â3.0 (quilt)â
+or â3.0 (native)â in debian/source/format.
+The rest of this section relates only to non-native packages.
The first time a version is uploaded which corresponds to a particular upstream
@@ -241,8 +254,8 @@ 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 behavior may be modified by using
+if and only if the current changelog entry has a different upstream version
+from the preceding entry. This behavior may be modified by using
-sa to always include it or -sd to always
leave it out.
@@ -255,8 +268,10 @@ the archive.
Please notice that, in non-native packages, permissions on files that are not
-present in the .orig.tar.gz will not be preserved, as diff does not store file
-permissions in the patch.
+present in the *.orig.tar.{gz,bz2,xz} will not be preserved, as diff does not store file
+permissions in the patch. However when using source format â3.0 (quilt)â,
+permissions of files inside the debian directory are
+preserved since they are stored in a tar archive.
@@ -266,36 +281,47 @@ permissions in the patch.
Each upload needs to specify which distribution the package is intended for.
The package build process extracts this information from the first line of the
debian/changelog file and places it in the
-Distribution field of the .changes file.
+Distribution field of the .changes file.
-There are several possible values for this field: `stable', `unstable',
-`testing-proposed-updates' and `experimental'. Normally, packages are uploaded
-into unstable.
+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', but read for more
-information on those.
+Actually, there are other possible distributions:
+codename-security,
+but read for more information on those.
It is not possible to upload a package into several distributions at the same
time.
-Special case: uploads to the <literal>stable</literal> distribution
+Special case: uploads to the <literal>stable</literal> and
+<literal>oldstable</literal> distributions
-Uploading to stable means that the package will transfered
-to the proposed-updates-new-queue for review by the stable
+Uploading to stable means that the package will transferred
+to the proposed-updates-new queue for review by the stable
release managers, and if approved will be installed in
stable-proposed-updates directory of the Debian archive.
From there, it will be included in stable with the next
point release.
+To ensure that your upload will be accepted, you should discuss the changes
+with the stable release team before you upload. For that, file a bug against
+the release.debian.org pseudo-package
+using reportbug, including the patch you want to
+apply to the package version currently in stable. Always
+be verbose and detailed in your changelog entries for uploads to the
+stable distribution.
+
+
Extra care should be taken when uploading to stable.
-Basically, a package should only be uploaded to stable if one of the following
-happens:
+Basically, a package should only be uploaded to stable if
+one of the following happens:
@@ -320,7 +346,10 @@ security problems as well. However, this practice is deprecated, as uploads
used for Debian security advisories are automatically copied to the appropriate
proposed-updates archive when the advisory is released.
See for detailed information on handling
-security problems.
+security problems. If the security teams deems the problem to be too
+benign to be fixed through a DSA, the stable release
+managers are usually willing to include your fix nonetheless in a regular
+upload to stable.
Changing anything else in the package that isn't important is discouraged,
@@ -331,25 +360,15 @@ Packages uploaded to stable need to be compiled on systems
running stable, so that their dependencies are limited to
the libraries (and other packages) available in stable;
for example, a package uploaded to stable that depends on
-a library package that only exists in unstable will be rejected. Making
-changes to dependencies of other packages (by messing with
-Provides or shlibs files), possibly making those other
-packages uninstallable, is strongly discouraged.
-
-
-The Release Team (which can be reached at
-&email-debian-release;) will regularly evaluate the uploads to
-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.
+a library package that only exists in unstable will be
+rejected. Making changes to dependencies of other packages (by messing with
+Provides or shlibs files), possibly
+making those other packages uninstallable, is strongly discouraged.
-It's best practice to speak with the stable release manager
-before uploading to
-stable/stable-proposed-updates, so
-that the uploaded package fits the needs of the next point release.
+Uploads to the oldstable distributions are possible as
+long as it hasn't been archived. The same rules as for stable
+apply.
@@ -369,9 +388,9 @@ section for details.
Uploading to <literal>ftp-master</literal>
To upload a package, you should upload the files (including the signed changes
-and dsc-file) with anonymous ftp to &ftp-master-host; in
+and dsc-file) with anonymous ftp to &ftp-upload-host; in
the directory &upload-queue;.
+url="ftp://&ftp-upload-host;&upload-queue;">&upload-queue;.
To get the files processed there, they need to be signed with a key in the
Debian Developers keyring or the Debian Maintainers keyring
(see ).
@@ -382,41 +401,41 @@ upload may be rejected because the archive maintenance software will parse the
changes file and see that not all files have been uploaded.
-You may also find the Debian packages or useful when uploading packages. These handy programs help
-automate the process of uploading packages into Debian.
+You may also find the Debian packages dupload
+or dput useful when uploading packages.These
+handy programs help automate the process of uploading packages into Debian.
-For removing packages, please see the README file in that ftp directory, and
-the Debian package .
+For removing packages, please see
+ and
+the Debian package dcut.
Delayed uploads
+
-Delayed uploads are done for the moment via the delayed queue at gluck
-. The upload-directory is
-gluck:~tfheen/DELAYED/[012345678]-day. 0-day is uploaded
-multiple times per day to &ftp-master-host;.
-
-
-With a fairly recent dput, this section
+It is sometimes useful to upload a package immediately, but to want this
+package to arrive in the archive only a few days later. For example,
+when preparing a Non-Maintainer Upload,
+you might want to give the maintainer a few days to react.
-
-[tfheen_delayed]
-method = scp
-fqdn = gluck.debian.org
-incoming = ~tfheen
-
+
-in ~/.dput.cf should work fine for uploading to the
-DELAYED queue.
+An upload to the delayed directory keeps the package in
+the deferred uploads queue.
+When the specified waiting time is over, the package is moved into
+the regular incoming directory for processing.
+This is done through automatic uploading to
+&ftp-upload-host; in upload-directory
+DELAYED/X-day
+(X between 0 and 15). 0-day is uploaded
+multiple times per day to &ftp-upload-host;.
-Note: Since this upload queue goes to
-&ftp-master-host;, the prescription found in applies here as well.
+With dput, you can use the --delayed DELAY
+parameter to put the package into one of the queues.
@@ -424,29 +443,27 @@ linkend="upload-ftp-master"/> applies here as well.
Security uploads
Do NOT upload a package to the security
-upload queue (oldstable-security, stable-security, etc.) without prior
-authorization from the security team. If the package does not exactly meet the
-team's requirements, it will cause many problems and delays in dealing with the
-unwanted upload. For details, please see section .
+upload queue (on security-master.debian.org)
+without prior authorization from the security team. If the
+package does not exactly meet the team's requirements, it will cause many
+problems and delays in dealing with the unwanted upload. For details, please
+see .
Other upload queues
-The scp queues on &ftp-master-host;, and security are mostly
-unusable due to the login restrictions on those hosts.
+There is an alternative upload queue in Europe at . It operates in
+the same way as &ftp-upload-host;, but should be faster
+for European developers.
-The anonymous queues on ftp.uni-erlangen.de and ftp.uk.debian.org are currently
-down. Work is underway to resurrect them.
-
-
-The queues on master.debian.org, samosa.debian.org, master.debian.or.jp, and
-ftp.chiark.greenend.org.uk are down permanently, and will not be resurrected.
-The queue in Japan will be replaced with a new queue on hp.debian.or.jp some
-day.
+Packages can also be uploaded via ssh to
+&ssh-upload-host;; files should be put
+/srv/upload.debian.org/UploadQueue. This queue does
+not support delayed uploads.
@@ -455,11 +472,12 @@ day.
The Debian archive maintainers are responsible for handling package uploads.
For the most part, uploads are automatically handled on a daily basis by the
-archive maintenance tools, katie. Specifically, updates to
-existing packages to the `unstable' distribution are handled automatically. In
-other cases, notably new packages, placing the uploaded package into the
-distribution is handled manually. When uploads are handled manually, the
-change to the archive may take up to a month to occur. Please be patient.
+archive maintenance tools, dak process-upload. Specifically,
+updates to existing packages to the unstable distribution are
+handled automatically. In other cases, notably new packages, placing the
+uploaded package into the distribution is handled manually. When uploads are
+handled manually, the change to the archive may take some time to occur. Please
+be patient.
In any case, you will receive an email notification indicating that the package
@@ -503,10 +521,13 @@ file.
To alter the actual section that a package is put in, you need to first make
sure that the debian/control file in your package is
-accurate. Next, send an email &email-override; or submit a
+accurate. Next, submit a
bug against ftp.debian.org requesting
that the section or priority for your package be changed from the old section
-or priority to the new one. Be sure to explain your reasoning.
+or priority to the new one. Use a Subject like
+override: PACKAGE1:section/priority, [...],
+ PACKAGEX:section/priority, and include the justification for the
+change in the body of the bug report.
For more information about override files, see
@@ -517,7 +538,7 @@ url="&url-bts-devel;#maintincorrect">.
Note that the Section field describes both the section as
well as the subsection, which are described in . If the section is main, it should be omitted.
+linkend="archive-sections"/>. If the section is main, it should be omitted.
The list of allowable subsections can be found in .
@@ -528,7 +549,7 @@ url="&url-debian-policy;ch-archive.html#s-subsections">.
Every developer has to be able to work with the Debian bug tracking system. This includes
-knowing how to file bug reports properly (see ),
+knowing how to file bug reports properly (see ),
how to update them and reorder them, and how to process and close them.
@@ -581,11 +602,11 @@ address.
When responding to bugs, make sure that any discussion you have about bugs is
sent both to the original submitter of the bug, and to the bug itself (e.g.,
-123@&bugs-host;). If you're writing a new mail and you
+123@&bugs-host;). If you're writing a new mail and you
don't remember the submitter email address, you can use the
-123-submitter@&bugs-host; email to contact the submitter
+123-submitter@&bugs-host; 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-host;).
+don't need to send a copy of the mail to 123@&bugs-host;).
If you get a bug which mentions FTBFS, this means Fails to build from source.
@@ -594,9 +615,9 @@ Porters frequently use this acronym.
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-host;. If you're fixing a bug by changing
+123-done@&bugs-host;. If you're fixing a bug by changing
and uploading the package, you can automate bug closing as described in .
+linkend="upload-bugfix"/>.
You should never close bugs via the bug server
@@ -657,10 +678,24 @@ procedure.
If the bug is real but it's caused by another package, just reassign the bug to
the right package. If you don't know which package it should be reassigned to,
you should ask for help on IRC or
-on &email-debian-devel;. Please make sure that the
-maintainer(s) of the package the bug is reassigned to know why you reassigned
-it.
+on &email-debian-devel;. Please inform the maintainer(s) of the package
+you reassign the bug to, for example by Cc:ing the message that does the
+reassign to packagename@packages.debian.org and explaining
+your reasons in that mail. Please note that a simple reassignment is
+not e-mailed to the maintainers of the package
+being reassigned to, so they won't know about it until they look at
+a bug overview for their packages.
+
+
+If the bug affects the operation of your package, please consider
+cloning the bug and reassigning the clone to the package that really
+causes the behavior. Otherwise, the bug will not be shown in your
+package's bug list, possibly causing users to report the same bug over
+and over again. You should block "your" bug with the reassigned, cloned
+bug to document the relationship.
+
+
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
@@ -707,7 +742,7 @@ 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
+the VCS 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
@@ -716,9 +751,9 @@ 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
- .
+Once a corrected package is available in the archive, the bug should be
+closed indicating the version in which it was fixed. This can be done
+automatically, read .
@@ -759,13 +794,13 @@ closing changelogs are identified:
We prefer the closes: #XXX
syntax, as it is the most concise entry and the easiest to integrate with the
text of the changelog. Unless specified different by the
--v-switch to dpkg-buildpackage,
+-v-switch to dpkg-buildpackage,
only the bugs closed in the most recent changelog entry are closed (basically,
exactly the bugs mentioned in the changelog-part in the
.changes file are closed).
-Historically, uploads identified as Non-maintainer
+Historically, uploads identified as non-maintainer
upload (NMU) were tagged fixed instead of being
closed, but that practice was ceased with the advent of version-tracking. The
same applied to the tag fixed-in-experimental.
@@ -777,8 +812,8 @@ bugs, send a reopen XXX command
to the bug tracking system's control address,
&email-bts-control;. To close any remaining bugs that were
fixed by your upload, email the .changes file to
-XXX-done@&bugs-host;, where XXX
-is the bug number, and put Version: YYY and an empty line as the first two
+XXX-done@&bugs-host;, where XXX
+is the bug number, and put Version: YYY and an empty line as the first two
lines of the body of the email, where YYY is the
first version where the bug has been fixed.
@@ -786,13 +821,13 @@ first version where the bug has been fixed.
Bear in mind that it is not obligatory to close bugs using the changelog as
described above. If you simply want to close bugs that don't have anything to
do with an upload you made, do it by emailing an explanation to
-XXX-done@&bugs-host;. Do XXX-done@&bugs-host;. Do not close bugs in the changelog entry of a version if
the changes in that version of the package don't have any bearing on the bug.
For general information on how to write your changelog entries, see .
+linkend="bpp-debian-changelog"/>.
@@ -803,24 +838,29 @@ 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
fixing them themselves, sending security advisories, and maintaining
-security.debian.org.
+security.debian.org.
-
-
When you become aware of a security-related bug in a Debian package, whether or
not you are the maintainer, collect pertinent information about the problem,
-and promptly contact the security team at
-&email-security-team; as soon as possible. DO NOT UPLOAD any packages for stable; the security
-team will do that. Useful information includes, for example:
+and promptly contact the security team by emailing &email-security-team;. If
+desired, email can be encrypted with the Debian Security Contact key, see
+ for details.
+DO NOT UPLOAD any packages for
+stable without contacting the team. Useful information
+includes, for example:
+Whether or not the bug is already public.
+
+
+
+
Which versions of the package are known to be affected by the bug. Check each
-version that is present in a supported Debian release, as well as testing and
-unstable.
+version that is present in a supported Debian release, as well as
+testing and unstable.
@@ -831,7 +871,7 @@ 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 and read .diff.gz and .dsc files and read first)
@@ -844,10 +884,33 @@ testing, etc.)
Any information needed for the advisory (see )
+linkend="bug-security-advisories"/>)
+As the maintainer of the package, you have the responsibility to
+maintain it, even in the stable release. You are in the best position
+to evaluate patches and test updated packages, so please see the sections
+below on how to prepare packages for the Security Team to handle.
+
+
+The Security Tracker
+
+The security team maintains a central database, the
+Debian Security Tracker.
+This contains all public information that is known about security issues:
+which packages and versions are affected or fixed, and thus whether stable,
+testing and/or unstable are vulnerable. Information that is still confidential
+is not added to the tracker.
+
+
+You can search it for a specific issue, but also on package name. Look
+for your package to see which issues are still open. If you can, please provide
+more information about those issues, or help to address them in your package.
+Instructions are on the tracker web pages.
+
+
+
Confidentiality
@@ -906,8 +969,9 @@ release of Debian. When sending confidential information to the security team,
be sure to mention this fact.
-Please note that if secrecy is needed you may not upload a fix to unstable (or
-anywhere else, such as a public CVS repository). It is not sufficient to
+Please note that if secrecy is needed you may not upload a fix to
+unstable (or
+anywhere else, such as a public VCS repository). It is not sufficient to
obfuscate the details of the change, as the code itself is public, and can (and
will) be examined by the general public.
@@ -916,14 +980,18 @@ There are two reasons for releasing information even though secrecy is
requested: the problem has been known for a while, or the problem or exploit
has become public.
+
+The Security Team has a PGP-key to enable encrypted communication about
+sensitive issues. See the Security Team FAQ for details.
+Security Advisories
Security advisories are only issued for the current, released stable
-distribution, and not for testing or unstable. When
-released, advisories are sent to the
+distribution, and not for testing
+or unstable. When released, advisories are sent to the
&email-debian-security-announce; mailing list and posted on
the security web
page. Security advisories are written and posted by the security team.
@@ -1044,7 +1112,7 @@ the previous version repeatedly (interdiff from the
patchutils package and
debdiff from devscripts are useful tools for this, see ).
+linkend="debdiff"/>).
Be sure to verify the following items:
@@ -1052,75 +1120,70 @@ Be sure to verify the following items:
-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 or
+Target the right distribution
+in your debian/changelog:
+codename-security
+(e.g. wheezy-security).
+Do not target distribution-proposed-updates or
stable!
-The upload should have urgency=high.
+The upload should have urgency=high.
Make descriptive, meaningful changelog entries. Others will rely on them to
-determine whether a particular bug was fixed. Always include an external
-reference, preferably a CVE identifier, so that it can be cross-referenced.
-Include the same information in the changelog for unstable, so that it is clear
-that the same bug was fixed, as this is very helpful when verifying that the
-bug is fixed in the next stable release. If a CVE identifier has not yet been
-assigned, the security team will request one so that it can be included in the
-package and in the advisory.
-
-
-
-
-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. Be careful not to
-re-use a version number that you have already used for a previous upload. 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.
+determine whether a particular bug was fixed. Add closes:
+statements for any Debian bugs filed.
+Always include an external reference, preferably a CVE
+identifier, so that it can be cross-referenced. However, if a CVE
+identifier has not yet been assigned, do not wait for it but continue the
+process. The identifier can be cross-referenced later.
-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.
+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. Be careful not to re-use a version number that
+you have already used for a previous upload, or one that conflicts with a
+binNMU. The convention is to append
++debXu1 (where
+X is the major release number), e.g.
+1:2.4.3-4+deb7u1, of course increasing 1 for any subsequent
+uploads.
-Unless the upstream source has been uploaded to security.debian.org before (by
-a previous security update), build the upload with full upstream source
+Unless the upstream source has been uploaded to
+security.debian.org before (by a previous security update),
+build the upload with full upstream source
(dpkg-buildpackage -sa). If there has been a previous
-upload to security.debian.org with the same upstream version, you may upload
-without upstream source (dpkg-buildpackage -sd).
+upload to security.debian.org with the same upstream
+version, you may upload without upstream source (dpkg-buildpackage
+-sd).
-Be sure to use the exact same *.orig.tar.gz as used in the
+Be sure to use the exact same
+*.orig.tar.{gz,bz2,xz} as used in the
normal archive, otherwise it is not possible to move the security fix into the
main archives later.
-Build the package on a clean system which only has packages installed from the
-distribution you are building for. If you do not have such a system yourself,
-you can use a debian.org machine (see ) or
-setup a chroot (see and ).
+Build the package on a clean system which only
+has packages installed from the distribution you are building for. If you do not
+have such a system yourself, you can use a debian.org machine (see
+) or setup a chroot (see
+ and ).
@@ -1130,15 +1193,16 @@ linkend="debootstrap"/> ).
Uploading the fixed package
Do NOT upload a package to the security
-upload queue (oldstable-security, stable-security, etc.) without prior
-authorization from the security team. If the package does not exactly meet the
-team's requirements, it will cause many problems and delays in dealing with the
-unwanted upload.
+upload queue (on security-master.debian.org)
+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
+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
@@ -1148,11 +1212,11 @@ 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-master.debian.org/pub/SecurityUploadQueue/ .
+ftp://security-master.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
+automatically be built for all architectures and stored for verification by
the security team.
@@ -1162,7 +1226,7 @@ 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 proposed for the proper
+security.debian.org as well as proposed for the proper
distribution-proposed-updates
on &ftp-master-host;.
@@ -1173,7 +1237,7 @@ on &ftp-master-host;.
-Moving, removing, renaming, adopting, and orphaning packages
+Moving, removing, renaming, orphaning, adopting, and reintroducing packages
Some archive manipulation operations are not automated in the Debian upload
process. These procedures should be manually followed by maintainers. This
@@ -1183,7 +1247,7 @@ chapter gives guidelines on what to do in these cases.
Moving packages
Sometimes a package will change its section. For instance, a package from the
-`non-free' section might be GPL'd in a later version, in which case the package
+non-free section might be GPL'd in a later version, in which case the package
should be moved to `main' or `contrib'. See the Debian Policy Manual for
guidelines on what section a package belongs in.
@@ -1194,7 +1258,7 @@ control information to place the package in the desired section, and re-upload
the package (see the Debian Policy Manual for
details). You must ensure that you include the
-.orig.tar.gz in your upload (even if you are not uploading
+.orig.tar.{gz,bz2,xz} in your upload (even if you are not uploading
a new upstream version), or it will not appear in the new section together with
the rest of the package. If your new section is valid, it will be moved
automatically. If it does not, then contact the ftpmasters in order to
@@ -1205,7 +1269,7 @@ 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 re-upload that. Also, you'll need to get the override file updated, as
-described in .
+described in .
@@ -1214,23 +1278,48 @@ described in .
If for some reason you want to completely remove a package (say, if it is an
old compatibility library which is no longer required), you need to file a bug
-against ftp.debian.org asking that the package be removed;
-as all bugs, this bug should normally have normal severity. Make sure you
-indicate which distribution the package should be removed from. Normally, you
-can only have packages removed from unstable and
-experimental. Packages are not removed from
+against &ftp-debian-org; asking that the package be removed;
+as all bugs, this bug should normally have normal severity.
+The bug title should be in the form RM: package
+[architecture list] --
+reason, where package
+is the package to be removed and reason is a
+short summary of the reason for the removal request.
+[architecture list] is optional and only needed
+if the removal request only applies to some architectures, not all. Note
+that the reportbug will create a title conforming
+to these rules when you use it to report a bug against the
+&ftp-debian-org; pseudo-package.
+
+
+
+If you want to remove a package you maintain, you should note this in
+the bug title by prepending ROM (Request Of Maintainer).
+There are several other standard acronyms used in the reasoning for a package
+removal, see
+for a complete list. That page also provides a convenient overview of
+pending removal requests.
+
+
+
+Note that removals can only be done for the unstable,
+experimental and stable
+distribution. 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.
+unstable and no package in
+testing depends on it. (Removals from
+testing are possible though by filing a removal bug report
+against the &release-debian-org;
+pseudo-package. See the section .)
There is one exception when an explicit removal request is not necessary: If a
-(source or binary) package is an orphan, it will be removed semi-automatically.
-For a binary-package, this means if there is no longer any source package
-producing this binary package; if the binary package is just no longer produced
-on some architectures, a removal request is still necessary. For a
-source-package, this means that all binary packages it refers to have been
+(source or binary) package is no longer built from source, it will be removed
+semi-automatically. For a binary-package, this means if there is no longer any
+source package producing this binary package; if the binary package is just no
+longer produced on some architectures, a removal request is still necessary. For
+a source-package, this means that all binary packages it refers to have been
taken over by another source package.
@@ -1242,7 +1331,12 @@ supersedes the one to be removed.
Usually you only ask for the removal of a package maintained by yourself. If
you want to remove another package, you have to get the approval of its
-maintainer.
+maintainer. Should the package be orphaned and thus have no maintainer,
+you should first discuss the removal request on &email-debian-qa;. If
+there is a consensus that the package should be removed, you should
+reassign and retitle the O: bug filed against the
+wnpp package instead of filing a new bug as
+removal request.
Further information relating to these and other package removal related topics
@@ -1256,8 +1350,10 @@ the apt-cache program from the apt package. When invoked as apt-cache
showpkg package, the program will show
details for package, including reverse depends.
-Other useful programs include apt-cache rdepends,
-apt-rdepends and grep-dctrl. Removal of
+Other useful programs include apt-cache rdepends,
+apt-rdepends, build-rdeps (in the
+devscripts package) and
+grep-dctrl. Removal of
orphaned packages is discussed on &email-debian-qa;.
@@ -1266,6 +1362,10 @@ 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 longer part of Debian.
+When closing the bugs,
+to avoid marking the bugs as fixed in versions of the packages
+in previous Debian releases, they should be marked as fixed
+in the version <most-recent-version-ever-in-Debian>+rm.
Removing packages from <filename>Incoming</filename>
@@ -1287,14 +1387,20 @@ occur too often anyway.
Replacing or renaming packages
-When you make a mistake naming your package, you should follow a two-step
-process to rename it. First, set your debian/control file
-to replace and conflict with the obsolete name of the package (see the Debian Policy Manual for
-details). Once you've uploaded 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. Do not forget to properly reassign the
-package's bugs at the same time.
+When the upstream maintainers for one of your packages chose to
+rename their software (or you made a mistake naming your package),
+you should follow a two-step process to rename it. In the first
+step, change the debian/control file to
+reflect the new name and to replace, provide and conflict with the
+obsolete package name (see the Debian
+Policy Manual for details). Please note that you
+should only add a Provides relation if all
+packages depending on the obsolete package name continue to work
+after the renaming. Once you've uploaded the package and the package
+has moved into the archive, file a bug against &ftp-debian-org;
+asking to remove the package with the
+obsolete name (see ). 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
@@ -1304,9 +1410,10 @@ 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.
+foo_1.00+0.orig.tar.gz or
+foo_1.00.orig.tar.bz2. This restriction gives each
+file on the ftp site a unique name, which helps to ensure consistency
+across the mirror network.
@@ -1354,7 +1461,7 @@ information and procedures.
It is not OK to simply take over a package that you feel is neglected â that
would be package hijacking. You can, of course, contact the current maintainer
and ask them if you may take over the package. If you have reason to believe a
-maintainer has gone AWOL (absent without leave), see .
+maintainer has gone AWOL (absent without leave), see .
Generally, you may not take over the package without the assent of the current
@@ -1370,7 +1477,7 @@ more information).
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
+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,
you can use to get the bug reports.
However, make sure that the old maintainer has no problem with the fact that
@@ -1378,6 +1485,55 @@ they will continue to receive the bugs during that time.
+
+Reintroducing packages
+
+Packages are often removed due to release-critical bugs, absent maintainers,
+too few users or poor quality in general. While the process of reintroduction
+is similar to the initial packaging process, you can avoid some pitfalls by
+doing some historical research first.
+
+
+You should check why the package was removed in the first place. This
+information can be found in the removal item in the news section of the PTS
+page for the package or by browsing the log of
+removals.
+The removal bug will tell you why the package was removed and will give some
+indication of what you will need to work on in order to reintroduce the package.
+It may indicate that the best way forward is to switch to some other piece of
+software instead of reintroducing the package.
+
+
+It may be appropriate to contact the former maintainers to find out if
+they are working on reintroducing the package, interested in co-maintaining
+the package or interested in sponsoring the package if needed.
+
+
+You should do all the things required before introducing new packages
+().
+
+
+You should base your work on the latest packaging available that is suitable.
+That might be the latest version from unstable, which will
+still be present in the snapshot archive.
+
+
+The version control system used by the previous maintainer might contain useful
+changes, so it might be a good idea to have a look there. Check if the control
+file of the previous package contained any headers linking to the version
+control system for the package and if it still exists.
+
+
+Package removals from unstable (not testing,
+stable or oldstable) trigger the
+closing of all bugs related to the package. You should look through all the
+closed bugs (including archived bugs) and unarchive and reopen any that were
+closed in a version ending in +rm and still apply. Any that
+no longer apply should be marked as fixed in the correct version if that is
+known.
+
+
+
@@ -1392,9 +1548,10 @@ you are not a porter, you should read most of this chapter.
Porting is the act of building Debian packages for architectures that are
different from the original architecture of the package maintainer's binary
package. It is a unique and essential activity. In fact, porters do most of
-the actual compiling of Debian packages. For instance, for a single
-i386 binary package, there must be a recompile for each
-architecture, which amounts to &number-of-arches; more builds.
+the actual compiling of Debian packages. For instance, when a maintainer
+uploads a (portable) source packages with binaries for the i386
+architecture, it will be built for each of the other architectures,
+amounting to &number-of-arches; more builds.
Being kind to porters
@@ -1425,18 +1582,19 @@ Make sure that your Build-Depends and
Build-Depends-Indep settings in
debian/control are set properly. The best way to validate
this is to use the debootstrap package
-to create an unstable chroot environment (see ).
+to create an unstable chroot environment (see ).
Within that chrooted environment, install the build-essential package and any package
dependencies mentioned in Build-Depends and/or
Build-Depends-Indep. Finally, try building your package
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 ).
+same name (see ).
If you can't set up a proper chroot, dpkg-depcheck may be of
-assistance (see ).
+assistance (see ).
See the Debian Policy
@@ -1445,10 +1603,12 @@ Manual for instructions on setting build dependencies.
-Don't set architecture to a value other than ``all'' or ``any'' unless you
-really mean it. In too many cases, maintainers don't follow the instructions
-in the Debian Policy
-Manual. Setting your architecture to ``i386'' is usually incorrect.
+Don't set architecture to a value other than all or
+any unless you really mean it. In too many cases,
+maintainers don't follow the instructions in the Debian Policy Manual. Setting your
+architecture to only one architecture (such as i386
+or amd64) is usually incorrect.
@@ -1463,7 +1623,7 @@ scratch with dpkg-buildpackage.
Make sure you don't ship your source package with the
debian/files or debian/substvars
-files. They should be removed by the `clean' target of
+files. They should be removed by the clean target of
debian/rules.
@@ -1479,7 +1639,9 @@ even if it's the same architecture.
Don't depend on the package you're building being installed already (a sub-case
-of the above issue).
+of the above issue). There are, of course, exceptions to this rule, but be
+aware that any case like this needs manual bootstrapping and cannot be done
+by automated package builders.
@@ -1492,11 +1654,11 @@ standardize on different compilers.
-Make sure your debian/rules contains separate ``binary-arch'' and
-``binary-indep'' targets, as the Debian Policy Manual requires. Make sure that
-both targets work independently, that is, that you can call the target without
-having called the other before. To test this, try to run
-dpkg-buildpackage -B.
+Make sure your debian/rules contains separate binary-arch
+and binary-indep targets, as the Debian Policy Manual
+requires. Make sure that both targets work independently, that is, that you
+can call the target without having called the other before. To test this,
+try to run dpkg-buildpackage -B.
@@ -1523,7 +1685,8 @@ The way to invoke dpkg-buildpackage is as
-mporter-email. Of course, set
porter-email to your email address. This will do a
binary-only build of only the architecture-dependent portions of the package,
-using the `binary-arch' target in debian/rules.
+using the binary-arch target in
+debian/rules.
If you are working on a Debian machine for your porting efforts and you need to
@@ -1537,17 +1700,17 @@ it signed conveniently, or use the remote signing mode of
Sometimes the initial porter upload is problematic because the environment in
which the package was built was not good enough (outdated or obsolete library,
-bad compiler, ...). Then you may just need to recompile it in an updated
+bad compiler, etc.). Then you may just need to recompile it in an updated
environment. However, you have to bump the version number in this case, so
that the old bad package can be replaced in the Debian archive
-(katie refuses to install new packages if they don't have a
+(dak refuses to install new packages if they don't have a
version number greater than the currently available one).
You have to make sure that your binary-only NMU doesn't render the package
uninstallable. This could happen when a source package generates
-arch-dependent and arch-independent packages that depend on each other via
-$(Source-Version).
+arch-dependent and arch-independent packages that have inter-dependencies
+generated using dpkg's substitution variable $(Source-Version).
Despite the required modification of the changelog, these are called
@@ -1563,16 +1726,19 @@ source code).
The ``magic'' for a recompilation-only NMU is triggered by using a suffix
-appended to the package version number, following the form b<number>.
+appended to the package version number, following the form
+bnumber.
For instance, if the latest version you are recompiling against was version
-``2.9-3'', your NMU should carry a version of ``2.9-3+b1''. If the latest
-version was ``3.4+b1'' (i.e, a native package with a previous recompilation
-NMU), your NMU should have a version number of ``3.4+b2''. In
-the past, such NMUs used the third-level number on the Debian part of the
-revision to denote their recompilation-only status; however, this syntax was
-ambiguous with native packages and did not allow proper ordering of
-recompile-only NMUs, source NMUs, and security NMUs on the same package, and
-has therefore been abandoned in favor of this new syntax.
+2.9-3, your binary-only NMU should carry a version of
+2.9-3+b1. If the latest version was 3.4+b1
+(i.e, a native package with a previous recompilation NMU), your
+binary-only NMU should have a version number of 3.4+b2.
+In the past, such NMUs used the third-level number on the
+Debian part of the revision to denote their recompilation-only status;
+however, this syntax was ambiguous with native packages and did not allow
+proper ordering of recompile-only NMUs, source NMUs, and security NMUs on
+the same package, and has therefore been abandoned in favor of this new syntax.
+
Similar to initial porter uploads, the correct way of invoking
@@ -1585,7 +1751,7 @@ to only build the architecture-dependent parts of the package.
When to do a source NMU if you are a porter
Porters doing a source NMU generally follow the guidelines found in , just like non-porters. However, it is expected that the wait
+linkend="nmu"/>, just like non-porters. However, it is expected that the wait
cycle for a porter's source NMU is smaller than for a non-porter, since porters
have to cope with a large quantity of packages. Again, the situation varies
depending on the distribution they are uploading to. It also varies whether
@@ -1593,23 +1759,24 @@ the architecture is a candidate for inclusion into the next stable release; the
release managers decide and announce which architectures are candidates.
-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 â the time between when the bug is submitted to the BTS and
-when it is OK to do an NMU â is seven days for porters working on the
-unstable distribution. This period can be shortened if the problem is critical
-and imposes hardship on the porting effort, at the discretion of the porter
-group. (Remember, none of this is Policy, just mutually agreed upon
-guidelines.) For uploads to stable or testing, please coordinate with the
-appropriate release team first.
+If you are a porter doing an NMU for unstable, the above
+guidelines for porting should be followed, with two variations. Firstly, the
+acceptable waiting period â the time between when the bug is submitted to
+the BTS and when it is OK to do an NMU â is seven days for porters working
+on the unstable distribution. This period can be shortened
+if the problem is critical and imposes hardship on the porting effort, at the
+discretion of the porter group. (Remember, none of this is Policy, just
+mutually agreed upon guidelines.) For uploads to stable or
+testing, please coordinate with the appropriate release
+team first.
Secondly, porters doing source NMUs should make sure that the bug they submit
-to the BTS should be of severity `serious' or greater. This ensures that a
-single source package can be used to compile every supported Debian
-architecture by release time. It is very important that we have one version of
-the binary and source package for all architecture in order to comply with many
-licenses.
+to the BTS should be of severity serious or greater. This
+ensures that a single source package can be used to compile every supported
+Debian architecture by release time. It is very important that we have one
+version of the binary and source package for all architectures in order to
+comply with many licenses.
Porters should try to avoid patches which simply kludge around bugs in the
@@ -1654,38 +1821,34 @@ with the porters.
Porter tools
Descriptions of several porting tools can be found in .
+linkend="tools-porting"/>.
-
-<systemitem role="package">buildd</systemitem>
+
+<systemitem role="package">wanna-build</systemitem>
-The buildd system is used as a
+The wanna-build system is used as a
distributed, client-server build distribution system. It is usually used in
-conjunction with build daemons, which are ``slave'' hosts
-which simply check out and attempt to auto-build packages which need to be
-ported. There is also an email interface to the system, which allows porters
-to ``check out'' a source package (usually one which cannot yet be auto-built)
-and work on it.
+conjunction with build daemons running the buildd
+program. Build daemons are ``slave'' hosts
+which contact the central wanna-build
+system to receive a list of packages that need to be built.
-buildd is not yet available as a
-package; however, most porting efforts are either using it currently or
-planning to use it in the near future. The actual automated builder is
-packaged as sbuild, see its description
-in . The complete buildd system also collects a number of as yet
-unpackaged components which are currently very useful and in use continually,
-such as andrea and wanna-build.
+wanna-build is not yet available as a
+package; however, all Debian porting efforts are using it for automated
+package building. The tool used to do the actual package builds, sbuild is available as a package, see its
+description in . Please note that the packaged
+version is not the same as the one used on build daemons, but it is close
+enough to reproduce problems.
-Some of the data produced by buildd
-which is generally useful to porters is available on the web at . This data includes nightly updated
-information from andrea (source dependencies) and
-quinn-diff (packages needing
-recompilation).
+Most of the data produced by wanna-build
+which is generally useful to porters is available on the
+web at . This data includes nightly
+updated statistics, queueing information and logs for build attempts.
We are quite proud of this system, since it has so many possible uses.
@@ -1695,9 +1858,17 @@ flavor of Debian built with gcc bounds checking). It will
also enable Debian to recompile entire distributions quickly.
-The buildds admins of each arch can be contacted at the mail address
-$arch@buildd.debian.org.
+The wanna-build team, in charge of the buildds,
+can be reached at debian-wb-team@lists.debian.org.
+To determine who (wanna-build team, release team) and how (mail, BTS)
+to contact, refer to .
+
+
+When requesting binNMUs or give-backs (retries after a failed build),
+please use the format described at .
+
+
@@ -1708,8 +1879,8 @@ $arch@buildd.debian.org.
Some packages still have issues with building and/or working on some of the
architectures supported by Debian, and cannot be ported at all, or not within a
reasonable amount of time. An example is a package that is SVGA-specific (only
-i386), or uses other hardware-specific features not supported on all
-architectures.
+available for i386 and amd64), or uses
+other hardware-specific features not supported on all architectures.
In order to prevent broken packages from being uploaded to the archive, and
@@ -1727,355 +1898,405 @@ allow the package to build as soon as the required functionality is available.
Additionally, if you believe the list of supported architectures is pretty
-constant, you should change 'any' to a list of supported architectures in
-debian/control. This way, the build will fail also, and indicate this to a
-human reader without actually trying.
+constant, you should change any to a list of supported
+architectures in debian/control. This way, the build will
+fail also, and indicate this to a human reader without actually trying.
In order to prevent autobuilders from needlessly trying to build your package,
-it must be included in packages-arch-specific, a list used
+it must be included in Packages-arch-specific, a list used
by the wanna-build script. The current version is available
-as ;
+as ;
please see the top of the file for whom to contact for changes.
Please note that it is insufficient to only add your package to
-Packages-arch-specific without making it fail to build on unsupported
+Packages-arch-specific without making it fail to build on unsupported
architectures: A porter or any other person trying to build your package might
accidently upload it without noticing it doesn't work. If in the past some
binary packages were uploaded on unsupported architectures, request their
removal by filing a bug against ftp.debian.org
+role="package">ftp.debian.org.
-
-
-
-Non-Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)
+
+Marking non-free packages as auto-buildable
-Under certain circumstances it is necessary for someone other than the official
-package maintainer to make a release of a package. This is called a
-non-maintainer upload, or NMU.
+By default packages from the non-free section are not built by the autobuilder
+network (mostly because the license of the packages could disapprove).
+To enable a package to be build you need to perform the following
+steps:
+
+
-This section handles only source NMUs, i.e. NMUs which upload a new version of
-the package. For binary-only NMUs by porters or QA members, please see . If a buildd builds and uploads a package, that
-too is strictly speaking a binary NMU. See for some
-more information.
+Check whether it is legally allowed and technically possible
+to auto-build the package;
+
+
-The main reason why NMUs are done is when a developer needs to fix another
-developer's package in order to address serious problems or crippling bugs or
-when the package maintainer is unable to release a fix in a timely fashion.
+Add XS-Autobuild: yes into the header part
+of debian/control;
+
+
-First and foremost, it is critical that NMU patches to source should be as
-non-disruptive as possible. Do not do housekeeping tasks, do not change the
-name of modules or files, do not move directories; in general, do not fix
-things which are not broken. Keep the patch as small as possible. If things
-bother you aesthetically, talk to the Debian maintainer, talk to the upstream
-maintainer, or submit a bug. However, aesthetic changes must
-not be made in a non-maintainer upload.
+Send an email to &email-nonfree-release; and explain why the
+package can legitimately and technically be auto-built.
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Non-Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)
-And please remember the Hippocratic Oath: Above all, do no harm. It is better
-to leave a package with an open grave bug than applying a non-functional patch,
-or one that hides the bug instead of resolving it.
+Every package has one or more maintainers. Normally, these are the people who
+work on and upload new versions of the package. In some situations, it is
+useful that other developers can upload a new version as well, for example if
+they want to fix a bug in a package they don't maintain, when the maintainer
+needs help to respond to issues. Such uploads are called
+Non-Maintainer Uploads (NMU).
+
-How to do a NMU
-
-NMUs which fix important, serious or higher severity bugs are encouraged and
-accepted. You should endeavor to reach the current maintainer of the package;
-they might be just about to upload a fix for the problem, or have a better
-solution.
-
-
-NMUs should be made to assist a package's maintainer in resolving bugs.
-Maintainers should be thankful for that help, and NMUers should respect the
-decisions of maintainers, and try to personally help the maintainer by their
-work.
-
+When and how to do an NMU
+
-A NMU should follow all conventions, written down in this section. For an
-upload to testing or unstable, this order of steps is recommended:
+Before doing an NMU, consider the following questions:
-Make sure that the package's bugs that the NMU is meant to address are all
-filed in the Debian Bug Tracking System (BTS). If they are not, submit them
-immediately.
+Does your NMU really fix bugs? Fixing cosmetic issues or changing the
+packaging style in NMUs is discouraged.
-Wait a few days for the response from the maintainer. If you don't get any
-response, you may want to help them by sending the patch that fixes the bug.
-Don't forget to tag the bug with the patch keyword.
+Did you give enough time to the maintainer? When was the bug reported to the
+BTS? Being busy for a week or two isn't unusual. Is the bug so severe that it
+needs to be fixed right now, or can it wait a few more days?
-Wait a few more days. If you still haven't got an answer from the maintainer,
-send them a mail announcing your intent to NMU the package. Prepare an NMU as
-described in this section, and test it carefully on your machine (cf. ). Double check that your patch doesn't have any
-unexpected side effects. Make sure your patch is as small and as
-non-disruptive as it can be.
+How confident are you about your changes? Please remember the Hippocratic Oath:
+"Above all, do no harm." It is better to leave a package with an open grave bug
+than applying a non-functional patch, or one that hides the bug instead of
+resolving it. If you are not 100% sure of what you did, it might be a good idea
+to seek advice from others. Remember that if you break something in your NMU,
+many people will be very unhappy about it.
-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.
+Have you clearly expressed your intention to NMU, at least in the BTS?
+It is also a good idea to try to contact the
+maintainer by other means (private email, IRC).
-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.
+If the maintainer is usually active and responsive, have you tried to contact
+them? In general it should be considered preferable that maintainers take care
+of an issue themselves and that they are given the chance to review and
+correct your patch, because they can be expected to be more aware of potential
+issues which an NMUer might miss. It is often a better use of everyone's time
+if the maintainer is given an opportunity to upload a fix on their own.
-At times, the release manager or an organized group of developers can announce
-a certain period of time in which the NMU rules are relaxed. This usually
-involves shortening the period during which one is to wait before uploading the
-fixes, and shortening the DELAYED period. It is important to notice that even
-in these so-called bug squashing party times, the NMU'er has to file bugs and
-contact the developer first, and act later. Please see for details.
+When doing an NMU, you must first make sure that your intention to NMU is
+clear. Then, you must send a patch with the differences between the
+current package and your proposed NMU to the BTS. The
+nmudiff script in the devscripts package
+might be helpful.
-For the testing distribution, the rules may be changed by the release managers.
-Please take additional care, and acknowledge that the usual way for a package
-to enter testing is through unstable.
+While preparing the patch, you should better be aware of any package-specific
+practices that the maintainer might be using. Taking them into account
+reduces the burden of integrating your changes into the normal package
+workflow and thus increases the chances that integration will happen. A good
+place where to look for for possible package-specific practices is
+debian/README.source.
-For the stable distribution, please take extra care. Of course, the release
-managers may also change the rules here. Please verify before you upload that
-all your changes are OK for inclusion into the next stable release by the
-release manager.
+Unless you have an excellent reason not to do so, you must then give some time
+to the maintainer to react (for example, by uploading to the
+DELAYED queue). Here are some recommended values to use for delays:
+
+
-When a security bug is detected, the security team may do an NMU, using their
-own rules. Please refer to for more
-information.
+Upload fixing only release-critical bugs older than 7 days, with no maintainer activity on the bug for 7 days and no indication that a fix is in progress: 0 days
+
+
-For the differences for Porters NMUs, please see .
+Upload fixing only release-critical bugs older than 7 days: 2 days
+
+
-Of course, it is always possible to agree on special rules with a maintainer
-(like the maintainer asking please upload this fix directly for me, and no diff
-required).
+Upload fixing only release-critical and important bugs: 5 days
-
-
-
-NMU version numbering
+
+
-Whenever you have made a change to a package, no matter how trivial, the
-version number needs to change. This enables our packing system to function.
+Other NMUs: 10 days
+
+
+
-If you are doing a non-maintainer upload (NMU), you should add a new minor
-version number to the debian-revision part of the
-version number (the portion after the last hyphen). This extra minor number
-will start at `1'. For example, consider the package `foo', which is at
-version 1.1-3. In the archive, the source package control file would be
-foo_1.1-3.dsc. The upstream version is `1.1' and the
-Debian revision is `3'. The next NMU would add a new minor number `.1' to the
-Debian revision; the new source control file would be
-foo_1.1-3.1.dsc.
+Those delays are only examples. In some cases, such as uploads fixing security
+issues, or fixes for trivial bugs that blocking a transition, it is desirable
+that the fixed package reaches unstable sooner.
+
-The Debian revision minor number is needed to avoid stealing one of the package
-maintainer's version numbers, which might disrupt their work. It also has the
-benefit of making it visually clear that a package in the archive was not made
-by the official maintainer.
+Sometimes, release managers decide to allow NMUs with shorter delays for a
+subset of bugs (e.g release-critical bugs older than 7 days). Also, some
+maintainers list themselves in the Low
+Threshold NMU list, and accept that NMUs are uploaded without delay. But
+even in those cases, it's still a good idea to give the maintainer a few days
+to react before you upload, especially if the patch wasn't available in the BTS
+before, or if you know that the maintainer is generally active.
+
-If there is no debian-revision component in the
-version number then one should be created, starting at `0.1' (but in case of a
-debian native package still upload it as native package). If it is absolutely
-necessary for someone other than the usual maintainer to make a release based
-on a new upstream version then the person making the release should start with
-the debian-revision value `0.1'. The usual
-maintainer of a package should start their
-debian-revision numbering at `1'.
+After you upload an NMU, you are responsible for the possible problems that you
+might have introduced. You must keep an eye on the package (subscribing to the
+package on the PTS is a good way to achieve this).
+
-If you upload a package to testing or stable, sometimes, you need to fork the
-version number tree. For this, version numbers like 1.1-3sarge0.1 could be
-used.
+This is not a license to perform NMUs thoughtlessly. If you NMU when it is
+clear that the maintainers are active and would have acknowledged a patch in a
+timely manner, or if you ignore the recommendations of this document, your
+upload might be a cause of conflict with the maintainer.
+You should always be prepared to
+defend the wisdom of any NMU you perform on its own merits.
-Source NMUs must have a new changelog entry
-
-Anyone who is doing a source NMU must create a changelog entry, describing
-which bugs are fixed by the NMU, and generally why the NMU was required and
-what it fixed. The changelog entry will have the email address of the person
-who uploaded it in the log entry and the NMU version number in it.
-
+NMUs and <filename>debian/changelog</filename>
-By convention, source NMU changelog entries start with the line
+Just like any other (source) upload, NMUs must add an entry to
+debian/changelog, telling what has changed with this
+upload. The first line of this entry must explicitely mention that this upload is an NMU, e.g.:
- * Non-maintainer upload
+ * Non-maintainer upload.
-
-
-Source NMUs and the Bug Tracking System
-Maintainers other than the official package maintainer should make as few
-changes to the package as possible, and they should always send a patch as a
-unified context diff (diff -u) detailing their changes to
-the Bug Tracking System.
+The way to version NMUs differs for native and non-native packages.
+
+
+If the package is a native package (without a Debian revision in the version number),
+the version must be the version of the last maintainer upload, plus
++nmuX, where
+X is a counter starting at 1.
+If
+the last upload was also an NMU, the counter should be increased. For example,
+if the current version is 1.5, then an NMU would get
+version 1.5+nmu1.
-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 package is not a native package, you should add a minor version number
+to the Debian revision part of the version number (the portion after the last
+hyphen). This extra number must start at 1. For example,
+if the current version is 1.5-2, then an NMU would get
+version 1.5-2.1. If a new upstream version
+is packaged in the NMU, the Debian revision is set to 0, for
+example 1.6-0.1.
-Bugs fixed by source NMUs used to be tagged fixed instead of closed, but since
-version tracking is in place, such bugs are now also closed with the NMU
-version.
+In both cases, if the last upload was also an NMU, the counter should
+be increased. For example, if the current version is
+1.5+nmu3 (a native package which has already been
+NMUed), the NMU would get version 1.5+nmu4.
-Also, after doing an NMU, you have to send the information to the existing bugs
-that are fixed by your NMU, including the unified diff. Historically, it was
-custom to open a new bug and include a patch showing all the changes you have
-made. The normal maintainer will either apply the patch or employ an alternate
-method of fixing the problem. Sometimes bugs are fixed independently upstream,
-which is another good reason to back out an NMU's patch. If the maintainer
-decides not to apply the NMU's patch but to release a new version, the
-maintainer needs to ensure that the new upstream version really fixes each
-problem that was fixed in the non-maintainer release.
+A special versioning scheme is needed to avoid disrupting the maintainer's
+work, since using an integer for the Debian revision will potentially
+conflict with a maintainer upload already in preparation at the time of an
+NMU, or even one sitting in the ftp NEW queue.
+It also has the
+benefit of making it visually clear that a package in the archive was not made
+by the official maintainer.
-In addition, the normal maintainer should always retain
-the entry in the changelog file documenting the non-maintainer upload -- and of
-course, also keep the changes. If you revert some of the changes, please
-reopen the relevant bug reports.
+If you upload a package to testing or stable, you sometimes need to "fork" the
+version number tree. This is the case for security uploads, for example. For
+this, a version of the form
++debXuY
+should be used, where X is the major release number,
+and Y is a counter starting at 1.
+For example, while Wheezy (Debian 7.0) is stable, a security NMU to stable for
+a package at version 1.5-3 would have version
+1.5-3+deb7u1, whereas a security NMU to Jessie would get
+version 1.5-3+deb8u1.
-
-Building source NMUs
+
+Using the <literal>DELAYED/</literal> queue
+
+
+Having to wait for a response after you request permission to NMU is
+inefficient, because it costs the NMUer a context switch to come back to the
+issue.
+The DELAYED queue (see )
+allows the developer doing the NMU to perform all the necessary tasks at the
+same time. For instance, instead of telling the maintainer that you will
+upload the updated
+package in 7 days, you should upload the package to
+DELAYED/7 and tell the maintainer that they have 7 days to
+react. During this time, the maintainer can ask you to delay the upload some
+more, or cancel your upload.
+
+
-Source NMU packages are built normally. Pick a distribution using the same
-rules as found in , follow the other
-instructions in .
+The DELAYED queue should not be used to put additional
+pressure on the maintainer. In particular, it's important that you are
+available to cancel or delay the upload before the delay expires since the
+maintainer cannot cancel the upload themselves.
+
-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.
+If you make an NMU to DELAYED and the maintainer updates
+the package before the delay expires, your upload will be rejected because a
+newer version is already available in the archive.
+Ideally, the maintainer will take care to include your proposed changes (or
+at least a solution for the problems they address) in that upload.
+
-
-Acknowledging an NMU
+
+NMUs from the maintainer's point of view
+
-If one of your packages has been NMU'ed, you have to incorporate the changes in
-your copy of the sources. This is easy, you just have to apply the patch that
-has been sent to you. Once this is done, you have to close the bugs that have
-been tagged fixed by the NMU. The easiest way is to use the
--v option of dpkg-buildpackage, as this
-allows you to include just all changes since your last maintainer upload.
-Alternatively, you can close them manually by sending the required mails to the
-BTS or by adding the required closes: #nnnn in the changelog
-entry of your next upload.
+When someone NMUs your package, this means they want to help you to keep it in
+good shape. This gives users fixed packages faster. You
+can consider asking the NMUer to become a co-maintainer of the package.
+Receiving an NMU on a package is not a bad
+thing; it just means that the package is interesting enough for other people to
+work on it.
+
-In any case, you should not be upset by the NMU. An NMU is not a personal
-attack against the maintainer. It is a proof that someone cares enough about
-the package that they were willing to help you in your work, so you should be
-thankful. You may also want to ask them if they would be interested in helping
-you on a more frequent basis as co-maintainer or backup maintainer (see ).
+To acknowledge an NMU, include its changes and changelog entry in your next
+maintainer upload. If you do not acknowledge the NMU by including the
+NMU changelog entry in your changelog, the bugs will remain closed in the
+BTS but will be listed as affecting your maintainer version of the package.
+
-
-NMU vs QA uploads
+
+Source NMUs vs Binary-only NMUs (binNMUs)
+
-Unless you know the maintainer is still active, it is wise to check the package
-to see if it has been orphaned. The current list of orphaned packages which
-haven't had their maintainer set correctly is available at . If you perform an NMU on an
-improperly orphaned package, please set the maintainer to Debian QA Group
-<packages@qa.debian.org>.
+The full name of an NMU is source NMU. There is also
+another type, namely the binary-only NMU, or
+binNMU. A binNMU is also a package upload by someone
+other than the package's maintainer. However, it is a binary-only upload.
+
+
+
+When a library (or other dependency) is updated, the packages using it may need
+to be rebuilt. Since no changes to the source are needed, the same source
+package is used.
-
-
-Who can do an NMU
-Only official, registered Debian Developers can do binary or source NMUs. A
-Debian Developer is someone who has their key in the Debian key ring.
-Non-developers, however, are encouraged to download the source package and
-start hacking on it to fix problems; however, rather than doing an NMU, they
-should just submit worthwhile patches to the Bug Tracking System. Maintainers
-almost always appreciate quality patches and bug reports.
+BinNMUs are usually triggered on the buildds by wanna-build.
+An entry is added to debian/changelog,
+explaining why the upload was needed and increasing the version number as
+described in .
+This entry should not be included in the next upload.
+
+
+Buildds upload packages for their architecture to the archive as binary-only
+uploads. Strictly speaking, these are binNMUs. However, they are not normally
+called NMU, and they don't add an entry to debian/changelog.
+
+
-
-Terminology
+
+NMUs vs QA uploads
+
-There are two new terms used throughout this section: ``binary-only NMU'' and
-``source NMU''. These terms are used with specific technical meaning
-throughout this document. Both binary-only and source NMUs are similar, since
-they involve an upload of a package by a developer who is not the official
-maintainer of that package. That is why it's a
-non-maintainer upload.
+NMUs are uploads of packages by somebody else than their assigned maintainer.
+There is
+another type of upload where the uploaded package is not yours: QA uploads. QA
+uploads are uploads of orphaned packages.
+
+
+QA uploads are very much like normal maintainer uploads: they may fix anything,
+even minor issues; the version numbering is normal, and there is no need to use
+a delayed upload. The difference is that you are not listed as the Maintainer
+or Uploader for the package. Also, the changelog entry of a QA upload has a
+special first line:
+
+
+
+ * QA upload.
+
+
-A source NMU is an upload of a package by a developer who is not the official
-maintainer, for the purposes of fixing a bug in the package. Source NMUs
-always involves changes to the source (even if it is just a change to
-debian/changelog). This can be either a change to the
-upstream source, or a change to the Debian bits of the source. Note, however,
-that source NMUs may also include architecture-dependent packages, as well as
-an updated Debian diff.
+If you want to do an NMU, and it seems that the maintainer is not active, it is
+wise to check if the package is orphaned
+(this information is displayed on the package's Package Tracking System page).
+When doing the first QA upload to an
+orphaned package, the maintainer should be set to Debian QA Group
+<packages@qa.debian.org>. Orphaned packages which did
+not yet have a QA upload still have their old maintainer set. There is a list
+of them at .
+
-A binary-only NMU is a recompilation and upload of a binary package for a given
-architecture. As such, it is usually part of a porting effort. A binary-only
-NMU is a non-maintainer uploaded binary version of a package, with no source
-changes required. There are many cases where porters must fix problems in the
-source in order to get them to compile for their target architecture; that
-would be considered a source NMU rather than a binary-only NMU. As you can
-see, we don't distinguish in terminology between porter NMUs and non-porter
-NMUs.
+Instead of doing a QA upload, you can also consider adopting the package by
+making yourself the maintainer. You don't need permission from anybody to
+adopt an orphaned package, you can just set yourself as maintainer and upload
+the new version (see ).
+
+
+
+
+NMUs vs team uploads
+
-Both classes of NMUs, source and binary-only, can be lumped under the term
-``NMU''. However, this often leads to confusion, since most people think
-``source NMU'' when they think ``NMU''. So it's best to be careful: always use
-``binary NMU'' or ``binNMU'' for binary-only NMUs.
+Sometimes you are fixing and/or updating a package because you are member of a
+packaging team (which uses a mailing list as Maintainer or Uploader, see ) but you don't want to add yourself to Uploaders
+because you do not plan to contribute regularly to this specific package. If it
+conforms with your team's policy, you can perform a normal upload without
+being listed directly as Maintainer or Uploader. In that case, you should
+start your changelog entry with the following line:
+
+
+ * Team upload.
+
+
@@ -2087,7 +2308,7 @@ 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 times. It is strongly recommended that packages with a priority of
-Standard or which are part of the base set have
+standard or which are part of the base set have
co-maintainers.
@@ -2107,8 +2328,8 @@ 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. Alioth (see
- ) provides such tools, amongst others.
+such as CVS or Subversion. Alioth (see
+) provides such tools, amongst others.
@@ -2123,7 +2344,7 @@ Uploaders: John Buzz <jbuzz@debian.org>, Adam Rex <arex@debian.org>
-Using the PTS ( ), the co-maintainers
+Using the PTS (), the co-maintainers
should subscribe themselves to the appropriate source package.
@@ -2131,32 +2352,38 @@ should subscribe themselves to the appropriate source package.
Another form of collaborative maintenance is team maintenance, which is
recommended if you maintain several packages with the same group of developers.
-In that case, the Maintainer and Uploaders field of each package must be
+In that case, the Maintainer and Uploaders field of each package must be
managed with care. It is recommended to choose between one of the two
following schemes:
-Put the team member mainly responsible for the package in the Maintainer field.
-In the Uploaders, put the mailing list address, and the team members who care
+Put the team member mainly responsible for the package in the Maintainer field.
+In the Uploaders, put the mailing list address, and the team members who care
for the package.
-Put the mailing list address in the Maintainer field. In the Uploaders field,
+Put the mailing list address in the Maintainer field. In the Uploaders field,
put the team members who care for the package. In this case, you must make
sure the mailing list accept bug reports without any human interaction (like
moderation for non-subscribers).
+
In any case, it is a bad idea to automatically put all team members in the
-Uploaders field. It clutters the Developer's Package Overview listing (see
- ) with packages one doesn't really care for, and creates
-a false sense of good maintenance.
+Uploaders field. It clutters the Developer's Package Overview listing (see
+) with packages one doesn't really care for, and creates
+a false sense of good maintenance. For the same reason, team members do
+not need to add themselves to the Uploaders field just because they are
+uploading the package once, they can do a âTeam uploadâ (see ). Conversely, it is a bad idea to keep a
+package with only the mailing list address as a Maintainer and no
+Uploaders.
@@ -2165,15 +2392,16 @@ a false sense of good maintenance.
Basics
-Packages are usually installed into the `testing' distribution after they have
-undergone some degree of testing in unstable.
+Packages are usually installed into the testing distribution
+after they have undergone some degree of testing in
+unstable.
They must be in sync on all architectures and mustn't have dependencies that
make them uninstallable; they also have to have generally no known
-release-critical bugs at the time they're installed into testing. This way,
-`testing' should always be close to being a release candidate. Please see
-below for details.
+release-critical bugs at the time they're installed into testing.
+This way, testing should always be close to
+being a release candidate. Please see below for details.
@@ -2181,8 +2409,8 @@ below for details.
Updates from unstable
The scripts that update the testing distribution are run
-each day after the installation of the updated packages; these scripts are
-called britney. They generate the
+twice each day, right after the installation of the updated packages; these
+scripts are called britney. They generate the
Packages files for the testing
distribution, but they do so in an intelligent manner; they try to avoid any
inconsistency and to use only non-buggy packages.
@@ -2197,22 +2425,21 @@ the following:
The package must have been available in unstable for 2, 5
or 10 days, depending on the urgency (high, medium or low). Please note that
the urgency is sticky, meaning that the highest urgency uploaded since the
-previous testing transition is taken into account. Those delays may be doubled
-during a freeze, or testing transitions may be switched off altogether;
+previous testing transition is taken into account;
It must not have new release-critical bugs (RC bugs affecting the version
-available in unstable, but not affecting the version in
+available in unstable, but not affecting the version in
testing);
It must be available on all architectures on which it has previously been built
-in unstable. may be of interest to check that
-information;
+in unstable. dak ls may be of interest
+to check that information;
@@ -2229,10 +2456,16 @@ The packages on which it depends must either be available in
all the necessary criteria);
+
+
+The phase of the project. I.e. automatic transitions are turned off during
+the freeze of the testing distribution.
+
+
-To find out whether a package is progressing into testing or not, see the
-testing script output on the testing
+or not, see the testing script output on the web page of the testing
distribution, or use the program grep-excuses which
is in the devscripts package. This
@@ -2250,23 +2483,24 @@ 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 cannot be sorted out by the
+set of interrelationship is too complicated and cannot be sorted out by the
scripts. See below for details.
Some further dependency analysis is shown on â but be warned, this page also
+url="http://release.debian.org/migration/"> â but be warned, this page also
shows build dependencies which are not considered by britney.
-out-of-date
+Out-of-date
-For the testing migration script, outdated means: There are different versions
-in unstable for the release architectures (except for the architectures in
-fuckedarches; fuckedarches is a list of architectures that don't keep up (in
-update_out.py), but currently, it's empty). outdated has nothing whatsoever to
-do with the architectures this package has in testing.
+For the testing migration script, outdated means: There are
+different versions in unstable for the release architectures
+(except for the architectures in fuckedarches; fuckedarches is a list of
+architectures that don't keep up (in update_out.py), but
+currently, it's empty). outdated has nothing whatsoever to do with the
+architectures this package has in testing.
Consider this example:
@@ -2295,12 +2529,14 @@ Consider this example:
-The package is out of date on alpha in unstable, and will not go to testing.
-And removing foo from testing would not help at all, the package is still out
-of date on alpha, and will not propagate to testing.
+The package is out of date on alpha in unstable, and will
+not go to testing. Removing the package would not help at all, the
+package is still out of date on alpha, and will not
+propagate to testing.
-However, if ftp-master removes a package in unstable (here on arm):
+However, if ftp-master removes a package in unstable (here
+on arm):
@@ -2330,8 +2566,8 @@ However, if ftp-master removes a package in unstable (here on arm):
In this case, the package is up to date on all release architectures in
-unstable (and the extra hurd-i386 doesn't matter, as it's not a release
-architecture).
+unstable (and the extra hurd-i386
+doesn't matter, as it's not a release architecture).
Sometimes, the question is raised if it is possible to allow packages in that
@@ -2350,17 +2586,19 @@ with the new version of b; then a may
be removed to allow b in.
-Of course, there is another reason to remove a package from testing: It's just
-too buggy (and having a single RC-bug is enough to be in this state).
+Of course, there is another reason to remove a package from testing:
+It's just too buggy (and having a single RC-bug is enough to be
+in this state).
-Furthermore, if a package has been removed from unstable, and no package in
-testing depends on it any more, then it will automatically be removed.
+Furthermore, if a package has been removed from unstable,
+and no package in testing depends on it any more, then it
+will automatically be removed.
-circular dependencies
+Circular dependencies
A situation which is not handled very well by britney is if package
a depends on the new version of package
@@ -2404,26 +2642,28 @@ happens to one of your packages.
-influence of package in testing
+Influence of package in testing
-Generally, there is nothing that the status of a package in testing means for
-transition of the next version from unstable to testing, with two exceptions:
+Generally, there is nothing that the status of a package in testing
+means for transition of the next version from unstable
+to testing, with two exceptions:
If the RC-bugginess of the package goes down, it may go in even if it is still
-RC-buggy. The second exception is if the version of the package in testing is
-out of sync on the different arches: Then any arch might just upgrade to the
-version of the source package; however, this can happen only if the package was
-previously forced through, the arch is in fuckedarches, or there was no binary
-package of that arch present in unstable at all during the testing migration.
+RC-buggy. The second exception is if the version of the package in
+testing is out of sync on the different arches: Then any arch might
+just upgrade to the version of the source package; however, this can happen
+only if the package was previously forced through, the arch is in fuckedarches,
+or there was no binary package of that arch present in unstable
+at all during the testing migration.
-In summary this means: The only influence that a package being in testing has
-on a new version of the same package is that the new version might go in
-easier.
+In summary this means: The only influence that a package being in
+testing has on a new version of the same package is that the new
+version might go in easier.
-details
+Details
If you are interested in details, this is how britney works:
@@ -2431,29 +2671,32 @@ If you are interested in details, this is how britney works:
The packages are looked at to determine whether they are valid candidates.
This gives the update excuses. The most common reasons why a package is not
considered are too young, RC-bugginess, and out of date on some arches. For
-this part of britney, the release managers have hammers of various sizes to
-force britney to consider a package. (Also, the base freeze is coded in that
-part of britney.) (There is a similar thing for binary-only updates, but this
-is not described here. If you're interested in that, please peruse the code.)
+this part of britney, the release managers have hammers of various sizes,
+called hints (see below), to force britney to consider a package.
-Now, the more complex part happens: Britney tries to update testing with the
-valid candidates; first, each package alone, and then larger and even larger
-sets of packages together. Each try is accepted if testing is not more
-uninstallable after the update than before. (Before and after this part, some
-hints are processed; but as only release masters can hint, this is probably not
-so important for you.)
+Now, the more complex part happens: Britney tries to update testing
+with the valid candidates. For that, britney tries to add each
+valid candidate to the testing distribution. If the number of uninstallable
+packages in testing doesn't increase, the package is
+accepted. From that point on, the accepted package is considered to be part
+of testing, such that all subsequent installability
+tests include this package. Hints from the release team are processed
+before or after this main run, depending on the exact type.
-If you want to see more details, you can look it up on
-merkel:/org/&ftp-debian-org;/testing/update_out/ (or there in
-~aba/testing/update_out to see a setup with a smaller packages file). Via web,
-it's at
+If you want to see more details, you can look it up on .
The hints are available via .
+url="http://&ftp-master-host;/testing/hints/">, where you can find
+the
+description
+as well. With the hints, the Debian Release team can block or unblock
+packages, ease or force packages into testing, remove
+packages from testing, approve uploads to
+testing-proposed-updates or override the urgency.
@@ -2462,9 +2705,10 @@ url="http://&ftp-master-host;/testing/hints/">.
Direct updates to testing
-The testing distribution is fed with packages from unstable according to the
-rules explained above. However, in some cases, it is necessary to upload
-packages built only for testing. For that, you may want to upload to
+The testing distribution is fed with packages from
+unstable according to the rules explained above. However,
+in some cases, it is necessary to upload packages built only for
+testing. For that, you may want to upload to
testing-proposed-updates.
@@ -2477,16 +2721,18 @@ give 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 this facility, but it is recommended that you ask for authorization from
-the release manager first. Even if a package is frozen, updates through
-unstable are possible, if the upload via unstable does not pull in any new
-dependencies.
+(for example because you have a newer development version in unstable),
+you may use this facility, but it is recommended that you ask for
+authorization from the release manager first. Even if a package is frozen,
+updates through unstable are possible, if the upload via
+unstable does not pull in any new dependencies.
-Version numbers are usually selected by adding the codename of the testing
-distribution and a running number, like 1.2sarge1 for the first upload through
-testing-proposed-updates of package version 1.2.
+Version numbers are usually selected by adding the codename of the
+testing distribution and a running number, like
+1.2squeeze1 for the first upload through
+testing-proposed-updates of package version
+1.2.
Please make sure you didn't miss any of these items in your upload:
@@ -2495,7 +2741,8 @@ Please make sure you didn't miss any of these items in your upload:
Make sure that your package really needs to go through
-testing-proposed-updates, and can't go through unstable;
+testing-proposed-updates, and can't go through
+unstable;
@@ -2542,40 +2789,40 @@ at &email-debian-release; and ask them to approve your upload.
What are release-critical bugs, and how do they get counted?
All bugs of some higher severities are by default considered release-critical;
-currently, these are critical, grave, and serious bugs.
+currently, these are critical, grave and
+serious bugs.
Such bugs are presumed to have an impact on the chances that the package will
-be released with the stable release of Debian: in general, if a package has
-open release-critical bugs filed on it, it won't get into testing, and
-consequently won't be released in stable.
-
-
-The unstable bug count are all release-critical bugs without either any
-release-tag (such as potato, woody) or with release-tag sid; also, only if they
-are neither fixed nor set to sarge-ignore. The testing bug count for a package
-is considered to be roughly the bug count of unstable count at the last point
-when the testing version equalled the unstable version.
+be released with the stable release of Debian: in general,
+if a package has open release-critical bugs filed on it, it won't get into
+testing, and consequently won't be released in
+stable.
-This will change post-sarge, as soon as we have versions in the bug tracking
-system.
+The unstable bug count are all release-critical bugs which
+are marked to apply to package/version
+combinations that are available in unstable for a release
+architecture. The testing bug count is defined analogously.
-How could installing a package into testing possibly break other packages?
+How could installing a package into <literal>testing</literal> possibly
+break other packages?
The structure of the distribution archives is such that they can only contain
one version of a package; a package is defined by its name. So when the source
-package acmefoo is installed into testing, along with its binary packages
-acme-foo-bin, acme-bar-bin, libacme-foo1 and libacme-foo-dev, the old version
-is removed.
+package acmefoo is installed into testing,
+along with its binary packages acme-foo-bin,
+acme-bar-bin, libacme-foo1 and
+libacme-foo-dev, the old version is removed.
However, the old version may have provided a binary package with an old soname
-of a library, such as libacme-foo0. Removing the old acmefoo will remove
-libacme-foo0, which will break any packages which depend on it.
+of a library, such as libacme-foo0. Removing the old
+acmefoo will remove libacme-foo0, which
+will break any packages which depend on it.
Evidently, this mainly affects packages which provide changing sets of binary
@@ -2587,7 +2834,8 @@ the ==, <=, or << varieties.
When the set of binary packages provided by a source package change in this
way, all the packages that depended on the old binaries will have to be updated
to depend on the new binaries instead. Because installing such a source
-package into testing breaks all the packages that depended on it in testing,
+package into testing breaks all the packages that depended on
+it in testing,
some care has to be taken now: all the depending packages must be updated and
ready to be installed themselves so that they won't be broken, and, once
everything is ready, manual intervention by the release manager or an assistant
@@ -2595,7 +2843,7 @@ is normally required.
If you are having problems with complicated groups of packages like this,
-contact debian-devel or debian-release for help.
+contact &email-debian-devel; or &email-debian-release; for help.