</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
-It is helpful to the people who live off unstable (and form our first line of
-testers). We should encourage these people.
+It is helpful to the people who live off <literal>unstable</literal> (and form
+our first line of testers). We should encourage these people.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<literal>Distribution</literal> field of the <literal>.changes</literal> file.
</para>
<para>
-There are several possible values for this field: `stable', `unstable',
-`testing-proposed-updates' and `experimental'. Normally, packages are uploaded
-into <literal>unstable</literal>.
+There are several possible values for this field: <literal>stable</literal>,
+<literal>unstable</literal>, <litersl>testing-proposed-updates</literal> and
+<literal>experimental</literal>. Normally, packages are uploaded into
+<literal>unstable</literal>.
</para>
<para>
-Actually, there are two other possible distributions: `stable-security' and
-`testing-security', but read <xref linkend="bug-security"/> for more
-information on those.
+Actually, there are two other possible distributions: <literal>stable-security
+</literal> and <literal>testing-security</literal>, but read
+<xref linkend="bug-security"/> for more information on those.
</para>
<para>
It is not possible to upload a package into several distributions at the same
</para>
<para>
Extra care should be taken when uploading to <literal>stable</literal>.
-Basically, a package should only be uploaded to stable if one of the following
-happens:
+Basically, a package should only be uploaded to <literal>stable</literal> if
+one of the following happens:
</para>
<itemizedlist>
<listitem>
running <literal>stable</literal>, so that their dependencies are limited to
the libraries (and other packages) available in <literal>stable</literal>;
for example, a package uploaded to <literal>stable</literal> that depends on
-a library package that only exists in unstable will be rejected. Making
-changes to dependencies of other packages (by messing with
-<literal>Provides</literal> or shlibs files), possibly making those other
-packages uninstallable, is strongly discouraged.
+a library package that only exists in <literal>unstable</literal> will be
+rejected. Making changes to dependencies of other packages (by messing with
+<literal>Provides</literal> or <literal>shlibs</literal> files), possibly
+making those other packages uninstallable, is strongly discouraged.
</para>
<para>
The Release Team (which can be reached at
<title>Security uploads</title>
<para>
Do <emphasis role="strong">NOT</emphasis> upload a package to the security
-upload queue (oldstable-security, stable-security, etc.) without prior
-authorization from the security team. If the package does not exactly meet the
-team's requirements, it will cause many problems and delays in dealing with the
-unwanted upload. For details, please see section <xref
-linkend="bug-security"/> .
+upload queue (<literal>oldstable-security</literal>, <literal>stable-security
+</literal>, etc.) without prior authorization from the security team. If the
+package does not exactly meet the team's requirements, it will cause many
+problems and delays in dealing with the unwanted upload. For details, please
+see section <xref linkend="bug-security"/> .
</para>
</section>
The Debian archive maintainers are responsible for handling package uploads.
For the most part, uploads are automatically handled on a daily basis by the
archive maintenance tools, <command>katie</command>. Specifically, updates to
-existing packages to the `unstable' distribution are handled automatically. In
-other cases, notably new packages, placing the uploaded package into the
-distribution is handled manually. When uploads are handled manually, the
-change to the archive may take up to a month to occur. Please be patient.
+existing packages to the <literal>unstable</literal> distribution are handled
+automatically. In other cases, notably new packages, placing the uploaded
+package into the distribution is handled manually. When uploads are handled
+manually, the change to the archive may take up to a month to occur. Please
+be patient.
</para>
<para>
In any case, you will receive an email notification indicating that the package
not you are the maintainer, collect pertinent information about the problem,
and promptly contact the security team at
&email-security-team; as soon as possible. <emphasis
-role="strong">DO NOT UPLOAD</emphasis> any packages for stable; the security
-team will do that. Useful information includes, for example:
+role="strong">DO NOT UPLOAD</emphasis> any packages for <literal>stable</literal>;
+ the security team will do that. Useful information includes, for example:
</para>
<itemizedlist>
<listitem>
<para>
Which versions of the package are known to be affected by the bug. Check each
-version that is present in a supported Debian release, as well as testing and
-unstable.
+version that is present in a supported Debian release, as well as
+<literal>testing</literal> and <literal>unstable</literal>.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
be sure to mention this fact.
</para>
<para>
-Please note that if secrecy is needed you may not upload a fix to unstable (or
+Please note that if secrecy is needed you may not upload a fix to
+<literal>unstable</literal> (or
anywhere else, such as a public CVS repository). It is not sufficient to
obfuscate the details of the change, as the code itself is public, and can (and
will) be examined by the general public.
<title>Security Advisories</title>
<para>
Security advisories are only issued for the current, released stable
-distribution, and <emphasis>not</emphasis> for testing or unstable. When
-released, advisories are sent to the
+distribution, and <emphasis>not</emphasis> for <literal>testing</literal>
+or <literal>unstable</literal>. When released, advisories are sent to the
&email-debian-security-announce; mailing list and posted on
<ulink url="&url-debian-security-advisories;">the security web
page</ulink>. Security advisories are written and posted by the security team.
<listitem>
<para>
Target the right distribution in your <filename>debian/changelog</filename>.
-For stable this is <literal>stable-security</literal> and for testing this is
-<literal>testing-security</literal>, and for the previous stable release, this
-is <literal>oldstable-security</literal>. Do not target
+For <literal>stable</literal> this is <literal>stable-security</literal> and
+for testing this is <literal>testing-security</literal>, and for the previous
+stable release, this is <literal>oldstable-security</literal>. Do not target
<replaceable>distribution</replaceable><literal>-proposed-updates</literal> or
<literal>stable</literal>!
</para>
Make descriptive, meaningful changelog entries. Others will rely on them to
determine whether a particular bug was fixed. Always include an external
reference, preferably a CVE identifier, so that it can be cross-referenced.
-Include the same information in the changelog for unstable, so that it is clear
+Include the same information in the changelog for <literal>unstable</literal>,
+so that it is clear
that the same bug was fixed, as this is very helpful when verifying that the
bug is fixed in the next stable release. If a CVE identifier has not yet been
assigned, the security team will request one so that it can be included in the
<literal>testing</literal>, there must be a higher version in
<literal>unstable</literal>. If there is none yet (for example, if
<literal>testing</literal> and <literal>unstable</literal> have the same
-version) you must upload a new version to unstable first.
+version) you must upload a new version to <literal>unstable</literal> first.
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<title>Uploading the fixed package</title>
<para>
Do <emphasis role="strong">NOT</emphasis> upload a package to the security
-upload queue (oldstable-security, stable-security, etc.) without prior
-authorization from the security team. If the package does not exactly meet the
-team's requirements, it will cause many problems and delays in dealing with the
-unwanted upload.
+upload queue (<literal>oldstable-security</literal>, <literal>stable-security
+</literal>, etc.) without prior authorization from the security team. If the
+package does not exactly meet the team's requirements, it will cause many
+problems and delays in dealing with the unwanted upload.
</para>
<para>
Do <emphasis role="strong">NOT</emphasis> upload your fix to proposed-updates
<literal>Build-Depends-Indep</literal> settings in
<filename>debian/control</filename> are set properly. The best way to validate
this is to use the <systemitem role="package">debootstrap</systemitem> package
-to create an unstable chroot environment (see <xref linkend="debootstrap"/> ).
+to create an <literal>unstable</literal> chroot environment (see <xref
+linkend="debootstrap"/> ).
Within that chrooted environment, install the <systemitem
role="package">build-essential</systemitem> package and any package
dependencies mentioned in <literal>Build-Depends</literal> and/or
release managers decide and announce which architectures are candidates.
</para>
<para>
-If you are a porter doing an NMU for `unstable', the above guidelines for
-porting should be followed, with two variations. Firstly, the acceptable
-waiting period — the time between when the bug is submitted to the BTS and
-when it is OK to do an NMU — is seven days for porters working on the
-unstable distribution. This period can be shortened if the problem is critical
-and imposes hardship on the porting effort, at the discretion of the porter
-group. (Remember, none of this is Policy, just mutually agreed upon
-guidelines.) For uploads to stable or testing, please coordinate with the
-appropriate release team first.
+If you are a porter doing an NMU for <literal>unstable</literal>, the above
+guidelines for porting should be followed, with two variations. Firstly, the
+acceptable waiting period — the time between when the bug is submitted to
+the BTS and when it is OK to do an NMU — is seven days for porters working
+on the <literal>unstable</literal> distribution. This period can be shortened
+if the problem is critical and imposes hardship on the porting effort, at the
+discretion of the porter group. (Remember, none of this is Policy, just
+mutually agreed upon guidelines.) For uploads to <literal>stable</literal> or
+<literal>testing </literal>, please coordinate with the appropriate release
+team first.
</para>
<para>
Secondly, porters doing source NMUs should make sure that the bug they submit
</para>
<para>
A NMU should follow all conventions, written down in this section. For an
-upload to testing or unstable, this order of steps is recommended:
+upload to <literal>testing</literal> or <literal>unstable</literal>, this
+order of steps is recommended:
</para>
<itemizedlist>
<listitem>
linkend="qa-bsp"/> for details.
</para>
<para>
-For the testing distribution, the rules may be changed by the release managers.
-Please take additional care, and acknowledge that the usual way for a package
-to enter testing is through unstable.
+For the <literal>testing</literal> distribution, the rules may be changed by
+the release managers. Please take additional care, and acknowledge that the
+usual way for a package to enter <literal>testing</literal> is through
+<literal>unstable</literal>.
</para>
<para>
For the stable distribution, please take extra care. Of course, the release
<replaceable>debian-revision</replaceable> numbering at `1'.
</para>
<para>
-If you upload a package to testing or stable, sometimes, you need to fork the
-version number tree. For this, version numbers like 1.1-3sarge0.1 could be
-used.
+If you upload a package to <literal>testing</literal> or <literal>stable
+</literal>, sometimes, you need to fork the version number tree. For this,
+version numbers like 1.1-3sarge0.1 could be used.
</para>
</section>
<section id="testing-basics">
<title>Basics</title>
<para>
-Packages are usually installed into the `testing' distribution after they have
-undergone some degree of testing in unstable.
+Packages are usually installed into the <literal>testing</literal> distribution
+after they have undergone some degree of <literal>testing</literal> in
+<literal>unstable</literal>.
</para>
<para>
They must be in sync on all architectures and mustn't have dependencies that
make them uninstallable; they also have to have generally no known
-release-critical bugs at the time they're installed into testing. This way,
-`testing' should always be close to being a release candidate. Please see
-below for details.
+release-critical bugs at the time they're installed into <literal>testing
+<literal>. This way, <literal>testing</literal> should always be close to
+being a release candidate. Please see below for details.
</para>
</section>
The package must have been available in <literal>unstable</literal> for 2, 5
or 10 days, depending on the urgency (high, medium or low). Please note that
the urgency is sticky, meaning that the highest urgency uploaded since the
-previous testing transition is taken into account. Those delays may be doubled
-during a freeze, or testing transitions may be switched off altogether;
+previous <literal>testing</literal> transition is taken into account. Those
+delays may be doubled during a freeze, or <literal>testing</literal>
+transitions may be switched off altogether;
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<listitem>
<para>
It must be available on all architectures on which it has previously been built
-in unstable. <xref linkend="madison"/> may be of interest to check that
-information;
+in <literal>unstable</literal>. <xref linkend="madison"/> may be of interest
+to check that information;
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
</listitem>
</itemizedlist>
<para>
-To find out whether a package is progressing into testing or not, see the
-
testing script output on the <ulink
+To find out whether a package is progressing into <literal>testing</literal>
+
or not, see the <literal>testing</literal> script output on the <ulink
url="&url-testing-maint;">web page of the testing
distribution</ulink>, or use the program <command>grep-excuses</command> which
is in the <systemitem role="package">devscripts</systemitem> package. This
<title>out-of-date</title>
<para>
<!-- FIXME: better rename this file than document rampant professionalism? -->
-For the testing migration script, outdated means: There are different versions
-in unstable for the release architectures (except for the architectures in
-fuckedarches; fuckedarches is a list of architectures that don't keep up (in
-update_out.py), but currently, it's empty). outdated has nothing whatsoever to
-do with the architectures this package has in testing.
+For the <literal>testing</literal> migration script, outdated means: There are
+different versions in <literal>unstable</literal> for the release architectures
+(except for the architectures in fuckedarches; fuckedarches is a list of
+architectures that don't keep up (in update_out.py), but currently, it's
+empty). outdated has nothing whatsoever to do with the architectures this
+package has in <literal>testing</literal>.
</para>
<para>
Consider this example:
</tgroup>
</informaltable>
<para>
-The package is out of date on alpha in unstable, and will not go to testing.
-And removing foo from testing would not help at all, the package is still out
-of date on alpha, and will not propagate to testing.
+The package is out of date on alpha in <literal>unstable</literal>, and will
+not go to <literal>testing. Removing the package would not help at all, the
+package is still out of date on <literal>alpha</literal>, and will not
+propagate to testing.
</para>
<para>
-However, if ftp-master removes a package in unstable (here on arm):
+However, if ftp-master removes a package in <literal>unstable</literal> (here
+on <literal>arm</literal>):
</para>
<informaltable pgwide="1">
<tgroup cols="4">
</informaltable>
<para>
In this case, the package is up to date on all release architectures in
-unstable (and the extra hurd-i386 doesn't matter, as it's not a release
-architecture).
+<literal>unstable</literal> (and the extra <literal>hurd-i386</literal>
+doesn't matter, as it's not a release architecture).
</para>
<para>
Sometimes, the question is raised if it is possible to allow packages in that
be removed to allow <literal>b</literal> in.
</para>
<para>
-Of course, there is another reason to remove a package from testing: It's just
-too buggy (and having a single RC-bug is enough to be in this state).
+Of course, there is another reason to remove a package from <literal>testing
+</literal>: It's just too buggy (and having a single RC-bug is enough to be
+in this state).
</para>
<para>
-Furthermore, if a package has been removed from unstable, and no package in
-testing depends on it any more, then it will automatically be removed.
+Furthermore, if a package has been removed from <literal>unstable</literal>,
+and no package in <literal>testing</literal> depends on it any more, then it
+will automatically be removed.
</para>
</section>
<section id="s5.13.2.4">
<title>influence of package in testing</title>
<para>
-Generally, there is nothing that the status of a package in testing means for
-transition of the next version from unstable to testing, with two exceptions:
+Generally, there is nothing that the status of a package in <literal>testing
+</literal> means for transition of the next version from <literal>unstable
+</literal> to <literal>testing</literal>, with two exceptions:
If the RC-bugginess of the package goes down, it may go in even if it is still
-RC-buggy. The second exception is if the version of the package in testing is
-out of sync on the different arches: Then any arch might just upgrade to the
-version of the source package; however, this can happen only if the package was
-previously forced through, the arch is in fuckedarches, or there was no binary
-package of that arch present in unstable at all during the testing migration.
+RC-buggy. The second exception is if the version of the package in <literal>
+testing</literal> is out of sync on the different arches: Then any arch might
+just upgrade to the version of the source package; however, this can happen
+only if the package was previously forced through, the arch is in fuckedarches,
+or there was no binary package of that arch present in <literal>unstable
+</literal> at all during the <literal>testing</literal> migration.
</para>
<para>
-In summary this means: The only influence that a package being in testing has
-on a new version of the same package is that the new version might go in
-easier.
+In summary this means: The only influence that a package being in <literal>
+testing</literal> has on a new version of the same package is that the new
+version might go in easier.
</para>
</section>
is not described here. If you're interested in that, please peruse the code.)
</para>
<para>
-Now, the more complex part happens: Britney tries to update testing with the
-valid candidates; first, each package alone, and then larger and even larger
-sets of packages together. Each try is accepted if testing is not more
-uninstallable after the update than before. (Before and after this part, some
-hints are processed; but as only release masters can hint, this is probably not
-so important for you.)
+Now, the more complex part happens: Britney tries to update <literal>testing
+</literal> with the valid candidates; first, each package alone, and then
+larger and even larger sets of packages together. Each try is accepted if
+<literal>testing</literal> 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.)
</para>
<para>
If you want to see more details, you can look it up on
-merkel:/org/&ftp-debian-org;/testing/update_out/ (or there in
-~aba/testing/update_out to see a setup with a smaller packages file). Via web,
-it's at <ulink
+<filename>merkel:/org/&ftp-debian-org;/testing/update_out/</filename> (or
+in <filename>merkel:~aba/testing/update_out</filename> to see a setup with
+
a smaller packages file). Via web, it's at <ulink
url="http://&ftp-master-host;/testing/update_out_code/"></ulink>
</para>
<para>
<section id="t-p-u">
<title>Direct updates to testing</title>
<para>
-The testing distribution is fed with packages from unstable according to the
-rules explained above. However, in some cases, it is necessary to upload
-packages built only for testing. For that, you may want to upload to
-<literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal>.
+The <literal>testing</literal> distribution is fed with packages from
+<literal>unstable</literal> according to the rules explained above. However,
+in some cases, it is necessary to upload packages built only for <literal>
+testing</literal>. For that, you may want to upload to <literal>
+testing-proposed-updates</literal>.
</para>
<para>
Keep in mind that packages uploaded there are not automatically processed, they
<para>
You should not upload to <literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal> when you
can update your packages through <literal>unstable</literal>. If you can't
-(for example because you have a newer development version in 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 <literal>unstable
+</literal>), you may use this facility, but it is recommended that you ask for
+authorization from the release manager first. Even if a package is frozen,
+updates through <literal>unstable</literal> are possible, if the upload via
+<literal>unstable</literal> does not pull in any new dependencies.
</para>
<para>
-Version numbers are usually selected by adding the codename of the testing
-distribution and a running number, like 1.2sarge1 for the first upload through
-<literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal> of package version 1.2.
+Version numbers are usually selected by adding the codename of the
+<literal>testing</literal> distribution and a running number, like
+<literal>1.2sarge1</literal> for the first upload through
+<literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal> of package version
+<literal>1.2</literal>.
</para>
<para>
Please make sure you didn't miss any of these items in your upload:
<listitem>
<para>
Make sure that your package really needs to go through
-<literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal>, and can't go through unstable;
+<literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal>, and can't go through <literal>
+unstable</literal>;
</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
</para>
<para>
Such bugs are presumed to have an impact on the chances that the package will
-be released with the stable release of Debian: in general, if a package has
-open release-critical bugs filed on it, it won't get into testing, and
-consequently won't be released in stable.
+be released with the <literal>stable</literal> release of Debian: in general,
+if a package has open release-critical bugs filed on it, it won't get into
+<literal>testing</literal>, and consequently won't be released in <literal>
+stable</literal>.
</para>
<para>
-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.
+The <literal>unstable</literal> 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 <literal>testing
+</literal> bug count for a package is considered to be roughly the bug count of
+<literal>unstable</literal> count at the last point when the <literal>testing
+</literal>version equalled the <literal>unstable</literal> version.
</para>
<para>
This will change post-sarge, as soon as we have versions in the bug tracking
</section>
<section id="s5.13.4.2">
-<title>How could installing a package into testing possibly break other packages?</title>
+<title>How could installing a package into <literal>testing</literal> possibly
+break other packages?</title>
<para>
The structure of the distribution archives is such that they can only contain
one version of a package; a package is defined by its name. So when the source
-package acmefoo is installed into testing, along with its binary packages
-acme-foo-bin, acme-bar-bin, libacme-foo1 and libacme-foo-dev, the old version
-is removed.
+package <literal>acmefoo</literal> is installed into <literal>testing</literal>,
+along with its binary packages <literal>acme-foo-bin</literal>, <literal>
+acme-bar-bin</literal>, <literal>libacme-foo1</literal> and <literal>
+libacme-foo-dev</literal>, the old version is removed.
</para>
<para>
However, the old version may have provided a binary package with an old soname
-of a library, such as libacme-foo0. Removing the old acmefoo will remove
-libacme-foo0, which will break any packages which depend on it.
+of a library, such as <literal>libacme-foo0</literal>. Removing the old
+<literal>acmefoo</literal> will remove <literal>libacme-foo0</literal>, which
+will break any packages which depend on it.
</para>
<para>
Evidently, this mainly affects packages which provide changing sets of binary
When the set of binary packages provided by a source package change in this
way, all the packages that depended on the old binaries will have to be updated
to depend on the new binaries instead. Because installing such a source
-package into testing breaks all the packages that depended on it in testing,
+package into <literal>testing</literal> breaks all the packages that depended on
+it in <literal>testing</literal>,
some care has to be taken now: all the depending packages must be updated and
ready to be installed themselves so that they won't be broken, and, once
everything is ready, manual intervention by the release manager or an assistant
</para>
<para>
The <link linkend="testing">testing</link> distribution is generated
-automatically by taking packages from unstable if they satisfy certain
-criteria. Those criteria should ensure a good quality for packages within
-testing. The update to testing is launched each day after the new packages
+automatically by taking packages from <literal>unstable</literal> if they
+satisfy certain criteria. Those criteria should ensure a good quality for
+packages within <literal>testing</literal>. The update to <literal>testing
+</literal> is launched twice each day, right after the new packages
have been installed. See <xref linkend="testing"/> .
</para>
<para>
<section id="s4.6.4.2">
<title>More information about the testing distribution</title>
<para>
-Packages are usually installed into the `testing' distribution after they have
-undergone some degree of testing in unstable.
+Packages are usually installed into the <literal>testing</literal> distribution
+after they have undergone some degree of testing in <literal>unstable</literal>.
</para>
<para>
For more details, please see the <link linkend="testing">information about
<title>Experimental</title>
<para>
The <literal>experimental</literal> distribution is a special distribution.
-It is not a full distribution in the same sense as `stable' and `unstable' are.
+It is not a full distribution in the same sense as <literal>stable</literal>,
+<literal>testing</literal> and <literal>unstable</literal> are.
Instead, it is meant to be a temporary staging area for highly experimental
software where there's a good chance that the software could break your system,
or software that's just too unstable even for the <literal>unstable</literal>
space on <literal>people.debian.org</literal>.
</para>
<para>
-When uploading to unstable a package which had bugs fixed in experimental,
-please consider using the option <literal>-v</literal> to
-<command>dpkg-buildpackage</command> to finally get them closed.
+When uploading to <literal>unstable</literal> a package which had bugs fixed
+in <literal>experimental</literal>, please consider using the option
+<literal>-v</literal> to <command>dpkg-buildpackage</command> to finally get
+them closed.
</para>
</section>
<title>Release code names</title>
<para>
Every released Debian distribution has a <literal>code name</literal>: Debian
-1.1 is called `buzz'; Debian 1.2, `rex'; Debian 1.3, `bo'; Debian 2.0, `hamm';
-Debian 2.1, `slink'; Debian 2.2, `potato'; Debian 3.0, `woody'; Debian 3.1,
-sarge; Debian 4.0, etch. There is also a ``pseudo-distribution'', called
-`sid', which is the current `unstable' distribution; since packages are moved
-from `unstable' to `testing' as they approach stability, `sid' itself is never
-released. As well as the usual contents of a Debian distribution, `sid'
-contains packages for architectures which are not yet officially supported or
-released by Debian. These architectures are planned to be integrated into the
-mainstream distribution at some future date.
+1.1 is called <literal>buzz</literal>; Debian 1.2, <literal>rex</literal>;
+Debian 1.3, <literal>bo</literal>; Debian 2.0, <literal>hamm</literal>;
+Debian 2.1, <literal>slink</literal>; Debian 2.2, <literal>potato</literal>;
+Debian 3.0, <literal>woody</literal>; Debian 3.1, <literal>sarge</literal>;
+Debian 4.0, <literal>etch</literal> and Debian 5.0 will be called <literal>
+lenny</literal>. There is also a ``pseudo-distribution'', called
+<literal>sid</literal>, which is the current <literal>unstable</literal>
+distribution; since packages are moved from <literal>unstable</literal> to
+<literal>testing</literal> as they approach stability, <literal>sid</literal>
+itself is never released. As well as the usual contents of a Debian
+distribution, <literal>sid</literal> contains packages for architectures which
+are not yet officially supported or released by Debian. These architectures
+are planned to be integrated into the mainstream distribution at some future
+date.
</para>
<para>
Since Debian has an open development model (i.e., everyone can participate and
-follow the development) even the `unstable' and `testing' distributions are
-distributed to the Internet through the Debian FTP and HTTP server network.
-Thus, if we had called the directory which contains the release candidate
-version `testing', then we would have to rename it to `stable' when the version
+follow the development) even the <literal>unstable</literal> and <literal>
+testing</literal> distributions are distributed to the Internet through the
+Debian FTP and HTTP server network. Thus, if we had called the directory which
+contains the release candidate version <literal>testing</literal>, then we
+would have to rename it to <literal>stable</literal> when the version
is released, which would cause all FTP mirrors to re-retrieve the whole
distribution (which is quite large).
</para>
The archive maintenance software will also send the OpenPGP/GnuPG signed
<filename>.changes</filename> file that you uploaded to the appropriate mailing
lists. If a package is released with the <literal>Distribution:</literal> set
-to `stable', the announcement is sent to
+to <literal>stable</literal>, the announcement is sent to
&email-debian-changes;. If a package is released with
-<literal>Distribution:</literal> set to `unstable' or `experimental', the
-announcement will be posted to &email-debian-devel-changes;
-instead.
+<literal>Distribution:</literal> set to <literal>unstable</literal> or
+<literal>experimental</literal>, the announcement will be posted to
+&email-debian-devel-changes; instead.
</para>
<para>
Though ftp-master is restricted, a copy of the installation is available to all
~ianmdlvl / developers-reference.git / commitdiff