LDP
/
old-www
1
1
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity
old-www/LDP/www.debian.org/doc/manuals/developers-reference/pkgs.html

1826 lines
143 KiB
HTML
Raw Permalink Blame History

This file contains invisible Unicode characters

This file contains invisible Unicode characters that are indistinguishable to humans but may be processed differently by a computer. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /><title>Chapter 5. Managing Packages</title><meta name="generator" content="DocBook XSL Stylesheets V1.76.1" /><link rel="home" href="index.html" title="Debian Developer's Reference" /><link rel="up" href="index.html" title="Debian Developer's Reference" /><link rel="prev" href="resources.html" title="Chapter 4. Resources for Debian Developers" /><link rel="next" href="best-pkging-practices.html" title="Chapter 6. Best Packaging Practices" /></head><body><div class="navheader"><table width="100%" summary="Navigation header"><tr><th colspan="3" align="center">Chapter 5. Managing Packages</th></tr><tr><td width="20%" align="left"><a accesskey="p" href="resources.html">Prev</a> </td><th width="60%" align="center"> </th><td width="20%" align="right"> <a accesskey="n" href="best-pkging-practices.html">Next</a></td></tr></table><hr /></div><div class="chapter" title="Chapter 5. Managing Packages"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title"><a id="pkgs"></a>Chapter 5. Managing Packages</h2></div></div></div><div class="toc"><p><strong>Table of Contents</strong></p><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#newpackage">5.1. New packages</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#changelog-entries">5.2. Recording changes in the package</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#sanitycheck">5.3. Testing the package</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#sourcelayout">5.4. Layout of the source package</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#distribution">5.5. Picking a distribution</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#upload-stable">5.5.1. Special case: uploads to the <code class="literal">stable</code> and
<code class="literal">oldstable</code> distributions</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#upload-t-p-u">5.5.2. Special case: uploads to <code class="literal">testing/testing-proposed-updates</code></a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#upload">5.6. Uploading a package</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#upload-ftp-master">5.6.1. Uploading to <code class="literal">ftp-master</code></a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#delayed-incoming">5.6.2. Delayed uploads</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#s5.6.4">5.6.3. Security uploads</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#s5.6.5">5.6.4. Other upload queues</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#upload-notification">5.6.5. Notification that a new package has been installed</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#override-file">5.7. Specifying the package section, subsection and priority</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#bug-handling">5.8. Handling bugs</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#bug-monitoring">5.8.1. Monitoring bugs</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#bug-answering">5.8.2. Responding to bugs</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#bug-housekeeping">5.8.3. Bug housekeeping</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#upload-bugfix">5.8.4. When bugs are closed by new uploads</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#bug-security">5.8.5. Handling security-related bugs</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#archive-manip">5.9. Moving, removing, renaming, adopting, and orphaning packages</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#moving-pkgs">5.9.1. Moving packages</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#removing-pkgs">5.9.2. Removing packages</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#s5.9.3">5.9.3. Replacing or renaming packages</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#orphaning">5.9.4. Orphaning a package</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#adopting">5.9.5. Adopting a package</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#porting">5.10. Porting and being ported</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#kind-to-porters">5.10.1. Being kind to porters</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#porter-guidelines">5.10.2. Guidelines for porter uploads</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#porter-automation">5.10.3. Porting infrastructure and automation</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#packages-arch-specific">5.10.4. When your package is <span class="emphasis"><em>not</em></span> portable</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#non-free-buildd">5.10.5. Marking non-free packages as auto-buildable</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#nmu">5.11. Non-Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#nmu-guidelines">5.11.1. When and how to do an NMU</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#nmu-changelog">5.11.2. NMUs and <code class="filename">debian/changelog</code></a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#nmu-delayed">5.11.3. Using the <code class="literal">DELAYED/</code> queue</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#nmu-maintainer">5.11.4. NMUs from the maintainer's point of view</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#nmu-binnmu">5.11.5. Source NMUs vs Binary-only NMUs (binNMUs)</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#nmu-qa-upload">5.11.6. NMUs vs QA uploads</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#nmu-team-upload">5.11.7. NMUs vs team uploads</a></span></dt></dl></dd><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#collaborative-maint">5.12. Collaborative maintenance</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#testing">5.13. The testing distribution</a></span></dt><dd><dl><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#testing-basics">5.13.1. Basics</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#testing-unstable">5.13.2. Updates from unstable</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#t-p-u">5.13.3. Direct updates to testing</a></span></dt><dt><span class="section"><a href="pkgs.html#faq">5.13.4. Frequently asked questions</a></span></dt></dl></dd></dl></div><p>
This chapter contains information related to creating, uploading, maintaining,
and porting packages.
</p><div class="section" title="5.1. New packages"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a id="newpackage"></a>5.1. New packages</h2></div></div></div><p>
If you want to create a new package for the Debian distribution, you should
first check the <a class="ulink" href="http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/" target="_top">Work-Needing and
Prospective Packages (WNPP)</a> list. Checking the WNPP list ensures that
no one is already working on packaging that software, and that effort is not
duplicated. Read the <a class="ulink" href="http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/" target="_top">WNPP web
pages</a> for more information.
</p><p>
Assuming no one else is already working on your prospective package, you must
then submit a bug report (<a class="xref" href="beyond-pkging.html#submit-bug" title="7.1. Bug reporting">Section 7.1, “Bug reporting”</a>) against the
pseudo-package <code class="systemitem">wnpp</code> 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.
</p><p>
You should set the subject of the bug to <code class="literal">ITP:
<em class="replaceable"><code>foo</code></em> -- <em class="replaceable"><code>short
description</code></em></code>, substituting the name of the new
package for <em class="replaceable"><code>foo</code></em>.
The severity of the bug report must be set to <code class="literal">wishlist</code>.
Please send a copy to <code class="email">&lt;<a class="email" href="mailto:debian-devel@lists.debian.org">debian-devel@lists.debian.org</a>&gt;</code> 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 (&gt;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.
</p><p>
Please include a <code class="literal">Closes: #<em class="replaceable"><code>nnnnn</code></em></code>
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 <a class="xref" href="pkgs.html#upload-bugfix" title="5.8.4. When bugs are closed by new uploads">Section 5.8.4, “When bugs are closed by new uploads”</a>).
</p><p>
If you think your package needs some explanations for the administrators of the
NEW package queue, include them in your changelog, send to <code class="email">&lt;<a class="email" href="mailto:ftpmaster@debian.org">ftpmaster@debian.org</a>&gt;</code>
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.
</p><p>
When closing security bugs include CVE numbers as well as the
<code class="literal">Closes: #<em class="replaceable"><code>nnnnn</code></em></code>.
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
include all available pointers to background information in the original
changelog entry.
</p><p>
There are a number of reasons why we ask maintainers to announce their
intentions:
</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" type="disc"><li class="listitem"><p>
It helps the (potentially new) maintainer to tap into the experience of people
on the list, and lets them know if anyone else is working on it already.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
It lets other people thinking about working on the package know that there
already is a volunteer, so efforts may be shared.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
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 <code class="email">&lt;<a class="email" href="mailto:debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org">debian-devel-changes@lists.debian.org</a>&gt;</code>.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
It is helpful to the people who live off <code class="literal">unstable</code> (and form
our first line of testers). We should encourage these people.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
The announcements give maintainers and other interested parties a better feel
of what is going on, and what is new, in the project.
</p></li></ul></div><p>
Please see <a class="ulink" href="http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html" target="_top">http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html</a>
for common rejection reasons for a new package.
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.2. Recording changes in the package"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a id="changelog-entries"></a>5.2. Recording changes in the package</h2></div></div></div><p>
Changes that you make to the package need to be recorded in the
<code class="filename">debian/changelog</code>. These changes should provide a concise
description of what was changed, why (if it's in doubt), and note if any bugs
were closed. They also record when the package was completed. This file will
be installed in
<code class="filename">/usr/share/doc/<em class="replaceable"><code>package</code></em>/changelog.Debian.gz</code>,
or
<code class="filename">/usr/share/doc/<em class="replaceable"><code>package</code></em>/changelog.gz</code>
for native packages.
</p><p>
The <code class="filename">debian/changelog</code> file conforms to a certain structure,
with a number of different fields. One field of note, the
<code class="literal">distribution</code>, is described in <a class="xref" href="pkgs.html#distribution" title="5.5. Picking a distribution">Section 5.5, “Picking a distribution”</a>. More information about the structure of this file
can be found in the Debian Policy section titled
<code class="filename">debian/changelog</code>.
</p><p>
Changelog entries can be used to automatically close Debian bugs when the
package is installed into the archive. See <a class="xref" href="pkgs.html#upload-bugfix" title="5.8.4. When bugs are closed by new uploads">Section 5.8.4, “When bugs are closed by new uploads”</a>.
</p><p>
It is conventional that the changelog entry of a package that contains a new
upstream version of the software looks like this:
</p><pre class="screen">
* New upstream release.
</pre><p>
There are tools to help you create entries and finalize the
<code class="filename">changelog</code> for release — see <a class="xref" href="tools.html#devscripts" title="A.6.1. devscripts">Section A.6.1, “<code class="systemitem">devscripts</code>”</a>
and <a class="xref" href="tools.html#dpkg-dev-el" title="A.6.6. dpkg-dev-el">Section A.6.6, “<code class="systemitem">dpkg-dev-el</code>”</a>.
</p><p>
See also <a class="xref" href="best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-debian-changelog" title="6.3. Best practices for debian/changelog">Section 6.3, “Best practices for <code class="filename">debian/changelog</code>”</a>.
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.3. Testing the package"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a id="sanitycheck"></a>5.3. Testing the package</h2></div></div></div><p>
Before you upload your package, you should do basic testing on it. At a
minimum, you should try the following activities (you'll need to have an older
version of the same Debian package around):
</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" type="disc"><li class="listitem"><p>
Install the package and make sure the software works, or upgrade the package
from an older version to your new version if a Debian package for it already
exists.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Run <span class="command"><strong>lintian</strong></span> over the package. You can run
<span class="command"><strong>lintian</strong></span> as follows: <code class="literal">lintian -v
<em class="replaceable"><code>package-version</code></em>.changes</code>. This will check
the source package as well as the binary package. If you don't understand the
output that <span class="command"><strong>lintian</strong></span> generates, try adding the
<code class="literal">-i</code> switch, which will cause <span class="command"><strong>lintian</strong></span> to
output a very verbose description of the problem.
</p><p>
Normally, a package should <span class="emphasis"><em>not</em></span> be uploaded if it causes
<span class="command"><strong>lintian</strong></span> to emit errors (they will start with <code class="literal">E</code>).
</p><p>
For more information on <span class="command"><strong>lintian</strong></span>, see <a class="xref" href="tools.html#lintian" title="A.2.1. lintian">Section A.2.1, “<code class="systemitem">lintian</code>”</a>.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Optionally run <span class="command"><strong>debdiff</strong></span> (see <a class="xref" href="tools.html#debdiff" title="A.2.2. debdiff">Section A.2.2, “<span class="command"><strong>debdiff</strong></span>”</a>) to analyze changes from an older
version, if one exists.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Downgrade the package to the previous version (if one exists) — this tests
the <code class="filename">postrm</code> and <code class="filename">prerm</code> scripts.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Remove the package, then reinstall it.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
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 <code class="filename">.diff.gz</code> file.
</p></li></ul></div></div><div class="section" title="5.4. Layout of the source package"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a id="sourcelayout"></a>5.4. Layout of the source package</h2></div></div></div><p>
There are two types of Debian source packages:
</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" type="disc"><li class="listitem"><p>
the so-called <code class="literal">native</code> packages, where there is no
distinction between the original sources and the patches applied for Debian
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
the (more common) packages where there's an original source tarball file
accompanied by another file that contains the changes made by Debian
</p></li></ul></div><p>
For the native packages, the source package includes a Debian source control
file (<code class="filename">.dsc</code>) and the source tarball
(<code class="filename">.tar.{gz,bz2,xz}</code>). A source package of a non-native package
includes a Debian source control file, the original source tarball
(<code class="filename">.orig.tar.{gz,bz2,xz}</code>) and the Debian changes
(<code class="filename">.diff.gz</code> for the source format “1.0” or
<code class="filename">.debian.tar.{gz,bz2,xz}</code> for the source format “3.0 (quilt)”).
</p><p>
With source format “1.0”, whether a package is native or not was determined
by <span class="command"><strong>dpkg-source</strong></span> at build time. Nowadays it is recommended
to be explicit about the desired source format by putting either “3.0 (quilt)”
or “3.0 (native)” in <code class="filename">debian/source/format</code>.
The rest of this section relates only to non-native packages.
</p><p>
The first time a version is uploaded which corresponds to a particular upstream
version, the original source tar file should be uploaded and included in the
<code class="filename">.changes</code> file. Subsequently, this very same tar file
should be used to build the new diffs and <code class="filename">.dsc</code> files, and
will not need to be re-uploaded.
</p><p>
By default, <span class="command"><strong>dpkg-genchanges</strong></span> and
<span class="command"><strong>dpkg-buildpackage</strong></span> will include the original source tar file
if and only if the current changelog entry has a different upstream version
from the preceding entry. This behavior may be modified by using
<code class="literal">-sa</code> to always include it or <code class="literal">-sd</code> to always
leave it out.
</p><p>
If no original source is included in the upload, the original source tar-file
used by <span class="command"><strong>dpkg-source</strong></span> when constructing the
<code class="filename">.dsc</code> file and diff to be uploaded
<span class="emphasis"><em>must</em></span> be byte-for-byte identical with the one already in
the archive.
</p><p>
Please notice that, in non-native packages, permissions on files that are not
present in the <code class="filename">*.orig.tar.{gz,bz2,xz}</code> will not be preserved, as diff does not store file
permissions in the patch. However when using source format “3.0 (quilt)”,
permissions of files inside the <code class="filename">debian</code> directory are
preserved since they are stored in a tar archive.
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.5. Picking a distribution"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a id="distribution"></a>5.5. Picking a distribution</h2></div></div></div><p>
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
<code class="filename">debian/changelog</code> file and places it in the
<code class="literal">Distribution</code> field of the <code class="filename">.changes</code> file.
</p><p>
There are several possible values for this field: <code class="literal">stable</code>,
<code class="literal">unstable</code>, <code class="literal">testing-proposed-updates</code> and
<code class="literal">experimental</code>. Normally, packages are uploaded into
<code class="literal">unstable</code>.
</p><p>
Actually, there are two other possible distributions: <code class="literal">stable-security</code>
and <code class="literal">testing-security</code>, but read
<a class="xref" href="pkgs.html#bug-security" title="5.8.5. Handling security-related bugs">Section 5.8.5, “Handling security-related bugs”</a> for more information on those.
</p><p>
It is not possible to upload a package into several distributions at the same
time.
</p><div class="section" title="5.5.1. Special case: uploads to the stable and oldstable distributions"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="upload-stable"></a>5.5.1. Special case: uploads to the <code class="literal">stable</code> and
<code class="literal">oldstable</code> distributions</h3></div></div></div><p>
Uploading to <code class="literal">stable</code> means that the package will transferred
to the <code class="literal">proposed-updates-new</code> queue for review by the stable
release managers, and if approved will be installed in
<code class="filename">stable-proposed-updates</code> directory of the Debian archive.
From there, it will be included in <code class="literal">stable</code> with the next
point release.
</p><p>
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 <code class="systemitem">release.debian.org</code> pseudo-package
using <span class="command"><strong>reportbug</strong></span>, including the patch you want to
apply to the package version currently in <code class="literal">stable</code>. Always
be verbose and detailed in your changelog entries for uploads to the
<code class="literal">stable</code> distribution.
</p><p>
Extra care should be taken when uploading to <code class="literal">stable</code>.
Basically, a package should only be uploaded to <code class="literal">stable</code> if
one of the following happens:
</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" type="disc"><li class="listitem"><p>
a truly critical functionality problem
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
the package becomes uninstallable
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
a released architecture lacks the package
</p></li></ul></div><p>
In the past, uploads to <code class="literal">stable</code> were used to address
security problems as well. However, this practice is deprecated, as uploads
used for Debian security advisories are automatically copied to the appropriate
<code class="filename">proposed-updates</code> archive when the advisory is released.
See <a class="xref" href="pkgs.html#bug-security" title="5.8.5. Handling security-related bugs">Section 5.8.5, “Handling security-related bugs”</a> for detailed information on handling
security problems. If the security teams deems the problem to be too
benign to be fixed through a <code class="literal">DSA</code>, the stable release
managers are usually willing to include your fix nonetheless in a regular
upload to <code class="literal">stable</code>.
</p><p>
Changing anything else in the package that isn't important is discouraged,
because even trivial fixes can cause bugs later on.
</p><p>
Packages uploaded to <code class="literal">stable</code> need to be compiled on systems
running <code class="literal">stable</code>, so that their dependencies are limited to
the libraries (and other packages) available in <code class="literal">stable</code>;
for example, a package uploaded to <code class="literal">stable</code> that depends on
a library package that only exists in <code class="literal">unstable</code> will be
rejected. Making changes to dependencies of other packages (by messing with
<code class="literal">Provides</code> or <code class="filename">shlibs</code> files), possibly
making those other packages uninstallable, is strongly discouraged.
</p><p>
Uploads to the <code class="literal">oldstable</code> distributions are possible as
long as it hasn't been archived. The same rules as for <code class="literal">stable</code>
apply.
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.5.2. Special case: uploads to testing/testing-proposed-updates"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="upload-t-p-u"></a>5.5.2. Special case: uploads to <code class="literal">testing/testing-proposed-updates</code></h3></div></div></div><p>
Please see the information in the <a class="link" href="pkgs.html#t-p-u" title="5.13.3. Direct updates to testing">testing
section</a> for details.
</p></div></div><div class="section" title="5.6. Uploading a package"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a id="upload"></a>5.6. Uploading a package</h2></div></div></div><div class="section" title="5.6.1. Uploading to ftp-master"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="upload-ftp-master"></a>5.6.1. Uploading to <code class="literal">ftp-master</code></h3></div></div></div><p>
To upload a package, you should upload the files (including the signed changes
and dsc-file) with anonymous ftp to <code class="literal">ftp.upload.debian.org</code> in
the directory <a class="ulink" href="ftp://ftp.upload.debian.org/pub/UploadQueue/" target="_top">/pub/UploadQueue/</a>.
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 <a class="ulink" href="http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMaintainer" target="_top">http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMaintainer</a>).
</p><p>
Please note that you should transfer the changes file last. Otherwise, your
upload may be rejected because the archive maintenance software will parse the
changes file and see that not all files have been uploaded.
</p><p>
You may also find the Debian packages <a class="link" href="tools.html#dupload" title="A.5.1. dupload">dupload</a>
or <a class="link" href="tools.html#dput" title="A.5.2. dput">dput</a> useful when uploading packages.These
handy programs help automate the process of uploading packages into Debian.
</p><p>
For removing packages, please see
<a class="ulink" href="ftp://ftp.upload.debian.org/pub/UploadQueue/README" target="_top">ftp://ftp.upload.debian.org/pub/UploadQueue/README</a> and
the Debian package <a class="link" href="tools.html#dcut" title="A.5.3. dcut">dcut</a>.
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.6.2. Delayed uploads"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="delayed-incoming"></a>5.6.2. Delayed uploads</h3></div></div></div><p>
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 <a class="link" href="pkgs.html#nmu" title="5.11. Non-Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)">Non-Maintainer Upload</a>,
you might want to give the maintainer a few days to react.
</p><p>
An upload to the delayed directory keeps the package in
<a class="ulink" href="http://ftp-master.debian.org/deferred.html" target="_top">the deferred uploads queue</a>.
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
<code class="literal">ftp.upload.debian.org</code> in upload-directory
<code class="literal">DELAYED/<em class="replaceable"><code>X</code></em>-day</code>
(<em class="replaceable"><code>X</code></em> between 0 and 15). 0-day is uploaded
multiple times per day to <code class="literal">ftp.upload.debian.org</code>.
</p><p>
With dput, you can use the <code class="literal">--delayed <em class="replaceable"><code>DELAY</code></em></code>
parameter to put the package into one of the queues.
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.6.3. Security uploads"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="s5.6.4"></a>5.6.3. Security uploads</h3></div></div></div><p>
Do <span class="strong"><strong>NOT</strong></span> upload a package to the security
upload queue (<code class="literal">oldstable-security</code>, <code class="literal">stable-security</code>,
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 <a class="xref" href="pkgs.html#bug-security" title="5.8.5. Handling security-related bugs">Section 5.8.5, “Handling security-related bugs”</a>.
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.6.4. Other upload queues"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="s5.6.5"></a>5.6.4. Other upload queues</h3></div></div></div><p>
There is an alternative upload queue in Europe at <a class="ulink" href="ftp://ftp.eu.upload.debian.org/pub/UploadQueue/" target="_top">ftp://ftp.eu.upload.debian.org/pub/UploadQueue/</a>. It operates in
the same way as <code class="literal">ftp.upload.debian.org</code>, but should be faster
for European developers.
</p><p>
Packages can also be uploaded via ssh to
<code class="literal">ssh.upload.debian.org</code>; files should be put
<code class="literal">/srv/upload.debian.org/UploadQueue</code>. This queue does
not support <a class="link" href="pkgs.html#delayed-incoming" title="5.6.2. Delayed uploads">delayed uploads</a>.
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.6.5. Notification that a new package has been installed"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="upload-notification"></a>5.6.5. Notification that a new package has been installed</h3></div></div></div><p>
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, <span class="command"><strong>dak process-upload</strong></span>. Specifically,
updates to existing packages to the <code class="literal">unstable</code> 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.
</p><p>
In any case, you will receive an email notification indicating that the package
has been added to the archive, which also indicates which bugs will be closed
by the upload. Please examine this notification carefully, checking if any
bugs you meant to close didn't get triggered.
</p><p>
The installation notification also includes information on what section the
package was inserted into. If there is a disparity, you will receive a
separate email notifying you of that. Read on below.
</p><p>
Note that if you upload via queues, the queue daemon software will also send
you a notification by email.
</p></div></div><div class="section" title="5.7. Specifying the package section, subsection and priority"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a id="override-file"></a>5.7. Specifying the package section, subsection and priority</h2></div></div></div><p>
The <code class="filename">debian/control</code> file's <code class="literal">Section</code> and
<code class="literal">Priority</code> fields do not actually specify where the file will
be placed in the archive, nor its priority. In order to retain the overall
integrity of the archive, it is the archive maintainers who have control over
these fields. The values in the <code class="filename">debian/control</code> file are
actually just hints.
</p><p>
The archive maintainers keep track of the canonical sections and priorities for
packages in the <code class="literal">override file</code>. If there is a disparity
between the <code class="literal">override file</code> and the package's fields as
indicated in <code class="filename">debian/control</code>, then you will receive an
email noting the divergence when the package is installed into the archive.
You can either correct your <code class="filename">debian/control</code> file for your
next upload, or else you may wish to make a change in the <code class="literal">override
file</code>.
</p><p>
To alter the actual section that a package is put in, you need to first make
sure that the <code class="filename">debian/control</code> file in your package is
accurate. Next, submit a
bug against <code class="systemitem">ftp.debian.org</code> requesting
that the section or priority for your package be changed from the old section
or priority to the new one. Use a Subject like
<code class="literal">override: PACKAGE1:section/priority, [...],
PACKAGEX:section/priority</code>, and include the justification for the
change in the body of the bug report.
</p><p>
For more information about <code class="literal">override files</code>, see
<span class="citerefentry"><span class="refentrytitle">dpkg-scanpackages</span>(1)</span> and <a class="ulink" href="http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#maintincorrect" target="_top">http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#maintincorrect</a>.
</p><p>
Note that the <code class="literal">Section</code> field describes both the section as
well as the subsection, which are described in <a class="xref" href="resources.html#archive-sections" title="4.6.1. Sections">Section 4.6.1, “Sections”</a>. If the section is main, it should be omitted.
The list of allowable subsections can be found in <a class="ulink" href="http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-subsections" target="_top">http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#s-subsections</a>.
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.8. Handling bugs"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a id="bug-handling"></a>5.8. Handling bugs</h2></div></div></div><p>
Every developer has to be able to work with the Debian <a class="ulink" href="http://www.debian.org/Bugs/" target="_top">bug tracking system</a>. This includes
knowing how to file bug reports properly (see <a class="xref" href="beyond-pkging.html#submit-bug" title="7.1. Bug reporting">Section 7.1, “Bug reporting”</a>),
how to update them and reorder them, and how to process and close them.
</p><p>
The bug tracking system's features are described in the <a class="ulink" href="http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer" target="_top">BTS documentation for
developers</a>. This includes closing bugs, sending followup messages,
assigning severities and tags, marking bugs as forwarded, and other issues.
</p><p>
Operations such as reassigning bugs to other packages, merging separate bug
reports about the same issue, or reopening bugs when they are prematurely
closed, are handled using the so-called control mail server. All of the
commands available on this server are described in the <a class="ulink" href="http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control" target="_top">BTS control server
documentation</a>.
</p><div class="section" title="5.8.1. Monitoring bugs"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="bug-monitoring"></a>5.8.1. Monitoring bugs</h3></div></div></div><p>
If you want to be a good maintainer, you should periodically check the <a class="ulink" href="http://www.debian.org/Bugs/" target="_top">Debian bug tracking system (BTS)</a> for
your packages. The BTS contains all the open bugs against your packages. You
can check them by browsing this page:
<code class="literal">http://bugs.debian.org/<em class="replaceable"><code>yourlogin</code></em>@debian.org</code>.
</p><p>
Maintainers interact with the BTS via email addresses at
<code class="literal">bugs.debian.org</code>. Documentation on available
commands can be found at <a class="ulink" href="http://www.debian.org/Bugs/" target="_top">http://www.debian.org/Bugs/</a>, or,
if you have installed the <code class="systemitem">doc-debian</code>
package, you can look at the local files <code class="filename">/usr/share/doc/debian/bug-*</code>.
</p><p>
Some find it useful to get periodic reports on open bugs. You can add a cron
job such as the following if you want to get a weekly email outlining all the
open bugs against your packages:
</p><pre class="screen">
# ask for weekly reports of bugs in my packages
0 17 * * fri echo "index maint <em class="replaceable"><code>address</code></em>" | mail request@bugs.debian.org
</pre><p>
Replace <em class="replaceable"><code>address</code></em> with your official Debian maintainer
address.
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.8.2. Responding to bugs"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="bug-answering"></a>5.8.2. Responding to bugs</h3></div></div></div><p>
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.,
<code class="email">&lt;<a class="email" href="mailto:123@bugs.debian.org"><em class="replaceable"><code>123</code></em>@bugs.debian.org</a>&gt;</code>). If you're writing a new mail and you
don't remember the submitter email address, you can use the
<code class="email">&lt;<a class="email" href="mailto:123-submitter@bugs.debian.org"><em class="replaceable"><code>123</code></em>-submitter@bugs.debian.org</a>&gt;</code> email to contact the submitter
<span class="emphasis"><em>and</em></span> to record your mail within the bug log (that means you
don't need to send a copy of the mail to <code class="email">&lt;<a class="email" href="mailto:123@bugs.debian.org"><em class="replaceable"><code>123</code></em>@bugs.debian.org</a>&gt;</code>).
</p><p>
If you get a bug which mentions FTBFS, this means Fails to build from source.
Porters frequently use this acronym.
</p><p>
Once you've dealt with a bug report (e.g. fixed it), mark it as
<code class="literal">done</code> (close it) by sending an explanation message to
<code class="email">&lt;<a class="email" href="mailto:123-done@bugs.debian.org"><em class="replaceable"><code>123</code></em>-done@bugs.debian.org</a>&gt;</code>. If you're fixing a bug by changing
and uploading the package, you can automate bug closing as described in <a class="xref" href="pkgs.html#upload-bugfix" title="5.8.4. When bugs are closed by new uploads">Section 5.8.4, “When bugs are closed by new uploads”</a>.
</p><p>
You should <span class="emphasis"><em>never</em></span> close bugs via the bug server
<code class="literal">close</code> command sent to <code class="email">&lt;<a class="email" href="mailto:control@bugs.debian.org">control@bugs.debian.org</a>&gt;</code>.
If you do so, the original submitter will not receive any information about why
the bug was closed.
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.8.3. Bug housekeeping"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="bug-housekeeping"></a>5.8.3. Bug housekeeping</h3></div></div></div><p>
As a package maintainer, you will often find bugs in other packages or have
bugs reported against your packages which are actually bugs in other packages.
The bug tracking system's features are described in the <a class="ulink" href="http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer" target="_top">BTS documentation for Debian
developers</a>. Operations such as reassigning, merging, and tagging bug
reports are described in the <a class="ulink" href="http://www.debian.org/Bugs/server-control" target="_top">BTS control server
documentation</a>. This section contains some guidelines for managing your
own bugs, based on the collective Debian developer experience.
</p><p>
Filing bugs for problems that you find in other packages is one of the civic
obligations of maintainership, see <a class="xref" href="beyond-pkging.html#submit-bug" title="7.1. Bug reporting">Section 7.1, “Bug reporting”</a> for details.
However, handling the bugs in your own packages is even more important.
</p><p>
Here's a list of steps that you may follow to handle a bug report:
</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
Decide whether the report corresponds to a real bug or not. Sometimes users
are just calling a program in the wrong way because they haven't read the
documentation. If you diagnose this, just close the bug with enough
information to let the user correct their problem (give pointers to the good
documentation and so on). If the same report comes up again and again you may
ask yourself if the documentation is good enough or if the program shouldn't
detect its misuse in order to give an informative error message. This is an
issue that may need to be brought up with the upstream author.
</p><p>
If the bug submitter disagrees with your decision to close the bug, they may
reopen it until you find an agreement on how to handle it. If you don't find
any, you may want to tag the bug <code class="literal">wontfix</code> to let people know
that the bug exists but that it won't be corrected. If this situation is
unacceptable, you (or the submitter) may want to require a decision of the
technical committee by reassigning the bug to <code class="systemitem">tech-ctte</code> (you may use the clone command of the BTS
if you wish to keep it reported against your package). Before doing so, please
read the <a class="ulink" href="http://www.debian.org/devel/tech-ctte" target="_top">recommended
procedure</a>.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
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 <a class="link" href="resources.html#irc-channels" title="4.2. IRC channels">IRC</a> or
on <code class="email">&lt;<a class="email" href="mailto:debian-devel@lists.debian.org">debian-devel@lists.debian.org</a>&gt;</code>. 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 <code class="email">&lt;<a class="email" href="mailto:packagename@packages.debian.org"><em class="replaceable"><code>packagename</code></em>@packages.debian.org</a>&gt;</code> and explaining
your reasons in that mail. Please note that a simple reassignment is
<span class="emphasis"><em>not</em></span> 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.
</p><p>
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.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Sometimes you also have to adjust the severity of the bug so that it matches
our definition of the severity. That's because people tend to inflate the
severity of bugs to make sure their bugs are fixed quickly. Some bugs may even
be dropped to wishlist severity when the requested change is just cosmetic.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
If the bug is real but the same problem has already been reported by someone
else, then the two relevant bug reports should be merged into one using the
merge command of the BTS. In this way, when the bug is fixed, all of the
submitters will be informed of this. (Note, however, that emails sent to one
bug report's submitter won't automatically be sent to the other report's
submitter.) For more details on the technicalities of the merge command and its
relative, the unmerge command, see the BTS control server documentation.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
The bug submitter may have forgotten to provide some information, in which case
you have to ask them for the required information. You may use the
<code class="literal">moreinfo</code> tag to mark the bug as such. Moreover if you can't
reproduce the bug, you tag it <code class="literal">unreproducible</code>. Anyone who
can reproduce the bug is then invited to provide more information on how to
reproduce it. After a few months, if this information has not been sent by
someone, the bug may be closed.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
If the bug is related to the packaging, you just fix it. If you are not able
to fix it yourself, then tag the bug as <code class="literal">help</code>. You can also
ask for help on <code class="email">&lt;<a class="email" href="mailto:debian-devel@lists.debian.org">debian-devel@lists.debian.org</a>&gt;</code> or
<code class="email">&lt;<a class="email" href="mailto:debian-qa@lists.debian.org">debian-qa@lists.debian.org</a>&gt;</code>. If it's an upstream problem, you have to
forward it to the upstream author. Forwarding a bug is not enough, you have to
check at each release if the bug has been fixed or not. If it has, you just
close it, otherwise you have to remind the author about it. If you have the
required skills you can prepare a patch that fixes the bug and send it to the
author at the same time. Make sure to send the patch to the BTS and to tag the
bug as <code class="literal">patch</code>.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
If you have fixed a bug in your local copy, or if a fix has been committed to
the VCS repository, you may tag the bug as <code class="literal">pending</code> to let
people know that the bug is corrected and that it will be closed with the next
upload (add the <code class="literal">closes:</code> in the
<code class="filename">changelog</code>). This is particularly useful if you are
several developers working on the same package.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
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 <a class="xref" href="pkgs.html#upload-bugfix" title="5.8.4. When bugs are closed by new uploads">Section 5.8.4, “When bugs are closed by new uploads”</a>.
</p></li></ol></div></div><div class="section" title="5.8.4. When bugs are closed by new uploads"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="upload-bugfix"></a>5.8.4. When bugs are closed by new uploads</h3></div></div></div><p>
As bugs and problems are fixed in your packages, it is your responsibility as
the package maintainer to close these bugs. However, you should not close a
bug until the package which fixes the bug has been accepted into the Debian
archive. Therefore, once you get notification that your updated package has
been installed into the archive, you can and should close the bug in the BTS.
Also, the bug should be closed with the correct version.
</p><p>
However, it's possible to avoid having to manually close bugs after the upload
— just list the fixed bugs in your <code class="filename">debian/changelog</code>
file, following a certain syntax, and the archive maintenance software will
close the bugs for you. For example:
</p><pre class="screen">
acme-cannon (3.1415) unstable; urgency=low
* Frobbed with options (closes: Bug#98339)
* Added safety to prevent operator dismemberment, closes: bug#98765,
bug#98713, #98714.
* Added man page. Closes: #98725.
</pre><p>
Technically speaking, the following Perl regular expression describes how bug
closing changelogs are identified:
</p><pre class="screen">
/closes:\s*(?:bug)?\#\s*\d+(?:,\s*(?:bug)?\#\s*\d+)*/ig
</pre><p>
We prefer the <code class="literal">closes: #<em class="replaceable"><code>XXX</code></em></code>
syntax, as it is the most concise entry and the easiest to integrate with the
text of the <code class="filename">changelog</code>. Unless specified different by the
<code class="literal">-v</code>-switch to <span class="command"><strong>dpkg-buildpackage</strong></span>,
only the bugs closed in the most recent changelog entry are closed (basically,
exactly the bugs mentioned in the changelog-part in the
<code class="filename">.changes</code> file are closed).
</p><p>
Historically, uploads identified as <a class="link" href="pkgs.html#nmu" title="5.11. Non-Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)">non-maintainer
upload (NMU)</a> were tagged <code class="literal">fixed</code> instead of being
closed, but that practice was ceased with the advent of version-tracking. The
same applied to the tag <code class="literal">fixed-in-experimental</code>.
</p><p>
If you happen to mistype a bug number or forget a bug in the changelog entries,
don't hesitate to undo any damage the error caused. To reopen wrongly closed
bugs, send a <code class="literal">reopen <em class="replaceable"><code>XXX</code></em></code> command
to the bug tracking system's control address,
<code class="email">&lt;<a class="email" href="mailto:control@bugs.debian.org">control@bugs.debian.org</a>&gt;</code>. To close any remaining bugs that were
fixed by your upload, email the <code class="filename">.changes</code> file to
<code class="email">&lt;<a class="email" href="mailto:XXX-done@bugs.debian.org"><em class="replaceable"><code>XXX</code></em>-done@bugs.debian.org</a>&gt;</code>, where <em class="replaceable"><code>XXX</code></em>
is the bug number, and put Version: <em class="replaceable"><code>YYY</code></em> and an empty line as the first two
lines of the body of the email, where <em class="replaceable"><code>YYY</code></em> is the
first version where the bug has been fixed.
</p><p>
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
<code class="email">&lt;<a class="email" href="mailto:XXX-done@bugs.debian.org"><em class="replaceable"><code>XXX</code></em>-done@bugs.debian.org</a>&gt;</code>. Do <span class="strong"><strong>not</strong></span> 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.
</p><p>
For general information on how to write your changelog entries, see <a class="xref" href="best-pkging-practices.html#bpp-debian-changelog" title="6.3. Best practices for debian/changelog">Section 6.3, “Best practices for <code class="filename">debian/changelog</code>”</a>.
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.8.5. Handling security-related bugs"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="bug-security"></a>5.8.5. Handling security-related bugs</h3></div></div></div><p>
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
<code class="literal">security.debian.org</code>.
</p><p>
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, preferably by filing a ticket in
their Request Tracker.
See <a class="ulink" href="http://wiki.debian.org/rt.debian.org#Security_Team" target="_top">http://wiki.debian.org/rt.debian.org#Security_Team</a>.
Alternatively you may email <code class="email">&lt;<a class="email" href="mailto:team@security.debian.org">team@security.debian.org</a>&gt;</code>.
<span class="strong"><strong>DO NOT UPLOAD</strong></span> any packages for
<code class="literal">stable</code> without contacting the team. Useful information
includes, for example:
</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" type="disc"><li class="listitem"><p>
Whether or not the bug is already public.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
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
<code class="literal">testing</code> and <code class="literal">unstable</code>.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
The nature of the fix, if any is available (patches are especially helpful)
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Any fixed packages that you have prepared yourself (send only the
<code class="filename">.diff.gz</code> and <code class="filename">.dsc</code> files and read <a class="xref" href="pkgs.html#bug-security-building" title="5.8.5.4. Preparing packages to address security issues">Section 5.8.5.4, “Preparing packages to address security issues”</a> first)
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Any assistance you can provide to help with testing (exploits, regression
testing, etc.)
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Any information needed for the advisory (see <a class="xref" href="pkgs.html#bug-security-advisories" title="5.8.5.3. Security Advisories">Section 5.8.5.3, “Security Advisories”</a>)
</p></li></ul></div><p>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.</p><div class="section" title="5.8.5.1. The Security Tracker"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a id="bug-security-tracker"></a>5.8.5.1. The Security Tracker</h4></div></div></div><p>
The security team maintains a central database, the
<a class="ulink" href="http://security-tracker.debian.org/" target="_top">Debian Security Tracker</a>.
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.
</p><p>
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.
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.8.5.2. Confidentiality"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a id="bug-security-confidentiality"></a>5.8.5.2. Confidentiality</h4></div></div></div><p>
Unlike most other activities within Debian, information about security issues
must sometimes be kept private for a time. This allows software distributors
to coordinate their disclosure in order to minimize their users' exposure.
Whether this is the case depends on the nature of the problem and corresponding
fix, and whether it is already a matter of public knowledge.
</p><p>
There are several ways developers can learn of a security problem:
</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" type="disc"><li class="listitem"><p>
they notice it on a public forum (mailing list, web site, etc.)
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
someone files a bug report
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
someone informs them via private email
</p></li></ul></div><p>
In the first two cases, the information is public and it is important to have a
fix as soon as possible. In the last case, however, it might not be public
information. In that case there are a few possible options for dealing with
the problem:
</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" type="disc"><li class="listitem"><p>
If the security exposure is minor, there is sometimes no need to keep the
problem a secret and a fix should be made and released.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
If the problem is severe, it is preferable to share the information with other
vendors and coordinate a release. The security team keeps in contact with the
various organizations and individuals and can take care of that.
</p></li></ul></div><p>
In all cases if the person who reports the problem asks that it not be
disclosed, such requests should be honored, with the obvious exception of
informing the security team in order that a fix may be produced for a stable
release of Debian. When sending confidential information to the security team,
be sure to mention this fact.
</p><p>
Please note that if secrecy is needed you may not upload a fix to
<code class="literal">unstable</code> (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.
</p><p>
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.
</p><p>
The Security Team has a PGP-key to enable encrypted communication about
sensitive issues. See the <a class="ulink" href="http://www.debian.org/security/faq#contact" target="_top">Security Team FAQ</a> for details.
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.8.5.3. Security Advisories"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a id="bug-security-advisories"></a>5.8.5.3. Security Advisories</h4></div></div></div><p>
Security advisories are only issued for the current, released stable
distribution, and <span class="emphasis"><em>not</em></span> for <code class="literal">testing</code>
or <code class="literal">unstable</code>. When released, advisories are sent to the
<code class="email">&lt;<a class="email" href="mailto:debian-security-announce@lists.debian.org">debian-security-announce@lists.debian.org</a>&gt;</code> mailing list and posted on
<a class="ulink" href="http://www.debian.org/security/" target="_top">the security web
page</a>. Security advisories are written and posted by the security team.
However they certainly do not mind if a maintainer can supply some of the
information for them, or write part of the text. Information that should be in
an advisory includes:
</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" type="disc"><li class="listitem"><p>
A description of the problem and its scope, including:
</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" type="circle"><li class="listitem"><p>
The type of problem (privilege escalation, denial of service, etc.)
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
What privileges may be gained, and by whom (if any)
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
How it can be exploited
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Whether it is remotely or locally exploitable
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
How the problem was fixed
</p></li></ul></div><p>
This information allows users to assess the threat to their systems.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Version numbers of affected packages
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Version numbers of fixed packages
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Information on where to obtain the updated packages (usually from the Debian
security archive)
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
References to upstream advisories, <a class="ulink" href="http://cve.mitre.org" target="_top">CVE</a> identifiers, and any other information
useful in cross-referencing the vulnerability
</p></li></ul></div></div><div class="section" title="5.8.5.4. Preparing packages to address security issues"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a id="bug-security-building"></a>5.8.5.4. Preparing packages to address security issues</h4></div></div></div><p>
One way that you can assist the security team in their duties is to provide
them with fixed packages suitable for a security advisory for the stable Debian
release.
</p><p>
When an update is made to the stable release, care must be taken to avoid
changing system behavior or introducing new bugs. In order to do this, make as
few changes as possible to fix the bug. Users and administrators rely on the
exact behavior of a release once it is made, so any change that is made might
break someone's system. This is especially true of libraries: make sure you
never change the API or ABI, no matter how small the change.
</p><p>
This means that moving to a new upstream version is not a good solution.
Instead, the relevant changes should be back-ported to the version present in
the current stable Debian release. Generally, upstream maintainers are willing
to help if needed. If not, the Debian security team may be able to help.
</p><p>
In some cases, it is not possible to back-port a security fix, for example when
large amounts of source code need to be modified or rewritten. If this
happens, it may be necessary to move to a new upstream version. However, this
is only done in extreme situations, and you must always coordinate that with
the security team beforehand.
</p><p>
Related to this is another important guideline: always test your changes. If
you have an exploit available, try it and see if it indeed succeeds on the
unpatched package and fails on the fixed package. Test other, normal actions
as well, as sometimes a security fix can break seemingly unrelated features in
subtle ways.
</p><p>
Do <span class="strong"><strong>NOT</strong></span> include any changes in your package
which are not directly related to fixing the vulnerability. These will only
need to be reverted, and this wastes time. If there are other bugs in your
package that you would like to fix, make an upload to proposed-updates in the
usual way, after the security advisory is issued. The security update
mechanism is not a means for introducing changes to your package which would
otherwise be rejected from the stable release, so please do not attempt to do
this.
</p><p>
Review and test your changes as much as possible. Check the differences from
the previous version repeatedly (<span class="command"><strong>interdiff</strong></span> from the
<code class="systemitem">patchutils</code> package and
<span class="command"><strong>debdiff</strong></span> from <code class="systemitem">devscripts</code> are useful tools for this, see <a class="xref" href="tools.html#debdiff" title="A.2.2. debdiff">Section A.2.2, “<span class="command"><strong>debdiff</strong></span>”</a>).
</p><p>
Be sure to verify the following items:
</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" type="disc"><li class="listitem"><p>
<span class="strong"><strong>Target the right distribution</strong></span>
in your <code class="filename">debian/changelog</code>.
For <code class="literal">stable</code> this is <code class="literal">stable-security</code> and
for <code class="literal">testing</code> this is <code class="literal">testing-security</code>, and for the previous
stable release, this is <code class="literal">oldstable-security</code>. Do not target
<em class="replaceable"><code>distribution</code></em><code class="literal">-proposed-updates</code> or
<code class="literal">stable</code>!
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
The upload should have <span class="strong"><strong>urgency=high</strong></span>.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Make descriptive, meaningful changelog entries. Others will rely on them to
determine whether a particular bug was fixed. Add <code class="literal">closes:</code>
statements for any <span class="strong"><strong>Debian bugs</strong></span> filed.
Always include an external reference, preferably a <span class="strong"><strong>CVE
identifier</strong></span>, 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.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Make sure the <span class="strong"><strong>version number</strong></span> is proper.
It must be greater than the current package, but less than package versions in
later distributions. If in doubt, test it with <code class="literal">dpkg
--compare-versions</code>. 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
<code class="literal">+</code><em class="replaceable"><code>codename</code></em><code class="literal">1</code>, e.g.
<code class="literal">1:2.4.3-4+lenny1</code>, of course increasing 1 for any subsequent
uploads.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Unless the upstream source has been uploaded to
<code class="literal">security.debian.org</code> before (by a previous security update),
build the upload <span class="strong"><strong>with full upstream source</strong></span>
(<code class="literal">dpkg-buildpackage -sa</code>). If there has been a previous
upload to <code class="literal">security.debian.org</code> with the same upstream
version, you may upload without upstream source (<code class="literal">dpkg-buildpackage
-sd</code>).
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Be sure to use the <span class="strong"><strong>exact same
<code class="filename">*.orig.tar.{gz,bz2,xz}</code></strong></span> as used in the
normal archive, otherwise it is not possible to move the security fix into the
main archives later.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Build the package on a <span class="strong"><strong>clean system</strong></span> 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
<a class="xref" href="resources.html#server-machines" title="4.4. Debian machines">Section 4.4, “Debian machines”</a>) or setup a chroot (see
<a class="xref" href="tools.html#pbuilder" title="A.4.3. pbuilder">Section A.4.3, “<code class="systemitem">pbuilder</code>”</a> and <a class="xref" href="tools.html#debootstrap" title="A.4.2. debootstrap">Section A.4.2, “<code class="systemitem">debootstrap</code>”</a>).
</p></li></ul></div></div><div class="section" title="5.8.5.5. Uploading the fixed package"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a id="bug-security-upload"></a>5.8.5.5. Uploading the fixed package</h4></div></div></div><p>
Do <span class="strong"><strong>NOT</strong></span> upload a package to the security
upload queue (<code class="literal">oldstable-security</code>, <code class="literal">stable-security</code>,
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.
</p><p>
Do <span class="strong"><strong>NOT</strong></span> upload your fix to
<code class="literal">proposed-updates</code> without coordinating with the security team.
Packages from <code class="literal">security.debian.org</code> will be copied into
the <code class="literal">proposed-updates</code> directory automatically. If a package
with the same or a higher version number is already installed into the archive,
the security update will be rejected by the archive system. That way, the
stable distribution will end up without a security update for this package
instead.
</p><p>
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
<code class="literal">ftp://security-master.debian.org/pub/SecurityUploadQueue/</code>.
</p><p>
Once an upload to the security queue has been accepted, the package will
automatically be built for all architectures and stored for verification by
the security team.
</p><p>
Uploads which are waiting for acceptance or verification are only accessible by
the security team. This is necessary since there might be fixes for security
problems that cannot be disclosed yet.
</p><p>
If a member of the security team accepts a package, it will be installed on
<code class="literal">security.debian.org</code> as well as proposed for the proper
<em class="replaceable"><code>distribution</code></em><code class="literal">-proposed-updates</code>
on <code class="literal">ftp-master.debian.org</code>.
</p></div></div></div><div class="section" title="5.9. Moving, removing, renaming, adopting, and orphaning packages"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a id="archive-manip"></a>5.9. Moving, removing, renaming, adopting, and orphaning packages</h2></div></div></div><p>
Some archive manipulation operations are not automated in the Debian upload
process. These procedures should be manually followed by maintainers. This
chapter gives guidelines on what to do in these cases.
</p><div class="section" title="5.9.1. Moving packages"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="moving-pkgs"></a>5.9.1. Moving packages</h3></div></div></div><p>
Sometimes a package will change its section. For instance, a package from the
<code class="literal">non-free</code> section might be GPL'd in a later version, in which case the package
should be moved to `main' or `contrib'.<sup>[<a id="idp20423976" href="#ftn.idp20423976" class="footnote">3</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
If you need to change the section for one of your packages, change the package
control information to place the package in the desired section, and re-upload
the package (see the <a class="ulink" href="http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/" target="_top">Debian Policy Manual</a> for
details). You must ensure that you include the
<code class="filename">.orig.tar.{gz,bz2,xz}</code> 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
understand what happened.
</p><p>
If, on the other hand, you need to change the <code class="literal">subsection</code>
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 <a class="xref" href="pkgs.html#override-file" title="5.7. Specifying the package section, subsection and priority">Section 5.7, “Specifying the package section, subsection and priority”</a>.
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.9.2. Removing packages"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="removing-pkgs"></a>5.9.2. Removing packages</h3></div></div></div><p>
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 <code class="systemitem">ftp.debian.org</code> asking that the package be removed;
as all bugs, this bug should normally have normal severity.
The bug title should be in the form <code class="literal">RM: <em class="replaceable"><code>package</code></em>
<em class="replaceable"><code>[architecture list]</code></em> --
<em class="replaceable"><code>reason</code></em></code>, where <em class="replaceable"><code>package</code></em>
is the package to be removed and <em class="replaceable"><code>reason</code></em> is a
short summary of the reason for the removal request.
<em class="replaceable"><code>[architecture list]</code></em> is optional and only needed
if the removal request only applies to some architectures, not all. Note
that the <span class="command"><strong>reportbug</strong></span> will create a title conforming
to these rules when you use it to report a bug against the
<code class="systemitem">ftp.debian.org</code> pseudo-package.
</p><p>
If you want to remove a package you maintain, you should note this in
the bug title by prepending <code class="literal">ROM</code> (Request Of Maintainer).
There are several other standard acronyms used in the reasoning for a package
removal, see <a class="ulink" href="http://ftp-master.debian.org/removals.html" target="_top">http://ftp-master.debian.org/removals.html</a>
for a complete list. That page also provides a convenient overview of
pending removal requests.
</p><p>
Note that removals can only be done for the <code class="literal">unstable</code>,
<code class="literal">experimental</code> and <code class="literal">stable</code>
distribution. Packages are not removed from
<code class="literal">testing</code> directly. Rather, they will be removed
automatically after the package has been removed from
<code class="literal">unstable</code> and no package in
<code class="literal">testing</code> depends on it.
</p><p>
There is one exception when an explicit removal request is not necessary: If a
(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.
</p><p>
In your removal request, you have to detail the reasons justifying the request.
This is to avoid unwanted removals and to keep a trace of why a package has
been removed. For example, you can provide the name of the package that
supersedes the one to be removed.
</p><p>
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. Should the package be orphaned and thus have no maintainer,
you should first discuss the removal request on <code class="email">&lt;<a class="email" href="mailto:debian-qa@lists.debian.org">debian-qa@lists.debian.org</a>&gt;</code>. If
there is a consensus that the package should be removed, you should
reassign and retitle the <code class="literal">O:</code> bug filed against the
<code class="literal">wnpp</code> package instead of filing a new bug as
removal request.
</p><p>
Further information relating to these and other package removal related topics
may be found at <a class="ulink" href="http://wiki.debian.org/ftpmaster_Removals" target="_top">http://wiki.debian.org/ftpmaster_Removals</a>
and <a class="ulink" href="http://qa.debian.org/howto-remove.html" target="_top">http://qa.debian.org/howto-remove.html</a>.
</p><p>
If in doubt concerning whether a package is disposable, email
<code class="email">&lt;<a class="email" href="mailto:debian-devel@lists.debian.org">debian-devel@lists.debian.org</a>&gt;</code> asking for opinions. Also of interest is
the <span class="command"><strong>apt-cache</strong></span> program from the <code class="systemitem">apt</code> package. When invoked as <code class="literal">apt-cache
showpkg <em class="replaceable"><code>package</code></em></code>, the program will show
details for <em class="replaceable"><code>package</code></em>, including reverse depends.
Other useful programs include <span class="command"><strong>apt-cache rdepends</strong></span>,
<span class="command"><strong>apt-rdepends</strong></span>, <span class="command"><strong>build-rdeps</strong></span> (in the
<code class="systemitem">devscripts</code> package) and
<span class="command"><strong>grep-dctrl</strong></span>. Removal of
orphaned packages is discussed on <code class="email">&lt;<a class="email" href="mailto:debian-qa@lists.debian.org">debian-qa@lists.debian.org</a>&gt;</code>.
</p><p>
Once the package has been removed, the package's bugs should be handled. They
should either be reassigned to another package in the case where the actual
code has evolved into another package (e.g. <code class="literal">libfoo12</code> was
removed because <code class="literal">libfoo13</code> 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 <code class="literal">&lt;most-recent-version-ever-in-Debian&gt;+rm</code>.
</p><div class="section" title="5.9.2.1. Removing packages from Incoming"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a id="s5.9.2.1"></a>5.9.2.1. Removing packages from <code class="filename">Incoming</code></h4></div></div></div><p>
In the past, it was possible to remove packages from
<code class="filename">incoming</code>. However, with the introduction of the new
incoming system, this is no longer possible. Instead, you have to upload a new
revision of your package with a higher version than the package you want to
replace. Both versions will be installed in the archive but only the higher
version will actually be available in <code class="literal">unstable</code> since the
previous version will immediately be replaced by the higher. However, if you
do proper testing of your packages, the need to replace a package should not
occur too often anyway.
</p></div></div><div class="section" title="5.9.3. Replacing or renaming packages"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="s5.9.3"></a>5.9.3. Replacing or renaming packages</h3></div></div></div><p>
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 <code class="filename">debian/control</code> file to
reflect the new name and to replace, provide and conflict with the
obsolete package name (see the <a class="ulink" href="http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/" target="_top">Debian
Policy Manual</a> for details). Please note that you
should only add a <code class="literal">Provides</code> 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 <code class="systemitem">ftp.debian.org</code>
asking to remove the package with the
obsolete name (see <a class="xref" href="pkgs.html#removing-pkgs" title="5.9.2. Removing packages">Section 5.9.2, “Removing packages”</a>). Do not forget
to properly reassign the package's bugs at the same time.
</p><p>
At other times, you may make a mistake in constructing your package and wish to
replace it. The only way to do this is to increase the version number and
upload a new version. The old version will be expired in the usual manner.
Note that this applies to each part of your package, including the sources: if
you wish to replace the upstream source tarball of your package, you will need
to upload it with a different version. An easy possibility is to replace
<code class="filename">foo_1.00.orig.tar.gz</code> with
<code class="filename">foo_1.00+0.orig.tar.gz</code> or
<code class="filename">foo_1.00.orig.tar.bz2</code>. This restriction gives each
file on the ftp site a unique name, which helps to ensure consistency
across the mirror network.
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.9.4. Orphaning a package"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="orphaning"></a>5.9.4. Orphaning a package</h3></div></div></div><p>
If you can no longer maintain a package, you need to inform others, and see
that the package is marked as orphaned. You should set the package maintainer
to <code class="literal">Debian QA Group &lt;packages@qa.debian.org&gt;</code> and
submit a bug report against the pseudo package <code class="systemitem">wnpp</code>. The bug report should be titled <code class="literal">O:
<em class="replaceable"><code>package</code></em> -- <em class="replaceable"><code>short
description</code></em></code> indicating that the package is now
orphaned. The severity of the bug should be set to
<code class="literal">normal</code>; if the package has a priority of standard or
higher, it should be set to important. If you feel it's necessary, send a copy
to <code class="email">&lt;<a class="email" href="mailto:debian-devel@lists.debian.org">debian-devel@lists.debian.org</a>&gt;</code> 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).
</p><p>
If you just intend to give the package away, but you can keep maintainership
for the moment, then you should instead submit a bug against <code class="systemitem">wnpp</code> and title it <code class="literal">RFA:
<em class="replaceable"><code>package</code></em> -- <em class="replaceable"><code>short
description</code></em></code>. <code class="literal">RFA</code> stands for
<code class="literal">Request For Adoption</code>.
</p><p>
More information is on the <a class="ulink" href="http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/" target="_top">WNPP
web pages</a>.
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.9.5. Adopting a package"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="adopting"></a>5.9.5. Adopting a package</h3></div></div></div><p>
A list of packages in need of a new maintainer is available in the <a class="ulink" href="http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/" target="_top">Work-Needing and Prospective Packages
list (WNPP)</a>. If you wish to take over maintenance of any of the
packages listed in the WNPP, please take a look at the aforementioned page for
information and procedures.
</p><p>
It is not OK to simply take over a package that you feel is neglected — that
would be package hijacking. You can, of course, contact the 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 <a class="xref" href="beyond-pkging.html#mia-qa" title="7.4. Dealing with inactive and/or unreachable maintainers">Section 7.4, “Dealing with inactive and/or unreachable maintainers”</a>.
</p><p>
Generally, you may not take over the package without the assent of the current
maintainer. Even if they ignore you, that is still not grounds to take over a
package. Complaints about maintainers should be brought up on the developers'
mailing list. If the discussion doesn't end with a positive conclusion, and
the issue is of a technical nature, consider bringing it to the attention of
the technical committee (see the <a class="ulink" href="http://www.debian.org/devel/tech-ctte" target="_top">technical committee web page</a> for
more information).
</p><p>
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
<code class="literal">Maintainer</code> 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 <a class="xref" href="resources.html#pkg-tracking-system" title="4.10. The Package Tracking System">Section 4.10, “The Package Tracking System”</a> to get the bug reports.
However, make sure that the old maintainer has no problem with the fact that
they will continue to receive the bugs during that time.
</p></div></div><div class="section" title="5.10. Porting and being ported"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a id="porting"></a>5.10. Porting and being ported</h2></div></div></div><p>
Debian supports an ever-increasing number of architectures. Even if you are
not a porter, and you don't use any architecture but one, it is part of your
duty as a maintainer to be aware of issues of portability. Therefore, even if
you are not a porter, you should read most of this chapter.
</p><p>
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, when a maintainer
uploads a (portable) source packages with binaries for the <code class="literal">i386</code>
architecture, it will be built for each of the other architectures,
amounting to 11 more builds.
</p><div class="section" title="5.10.1. Being kind to porters"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="kind-to-porters"></a>5.10.1. Being kind to porters</h3></div></div></div><p>
Porters have a difficult and unique task, since they are required to deal with
a large volume of packages. Ideally, every source package should build right
out of the box. Unfortunately, this is often not the case. This section
contains a checklist of ``gotchas'' often committed by Debian maintainers —
common problems which often stymie porters, and make their jobs unnecessarily
difficult.
</p><p>
The first and most important thing is to respond quickly to bug or issues
raised by porters. Please treat porters with courtesy, as if they were in fact
co-maintainers of your package (which, in a way, they are). Please be tolerant
of succinct or even unclear bug reports; do your best to hunt down whatever the
problem is.
</p><p>
By far, most of the problems encountered by porters are caused by
<span class="emphasis"><em>packaging bugs</em></span> in the source packages. Here is a
checklist of things you should check or be aware of.
</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
Make sure that your <code class="literal">Build-Depends</code> and
<code class="literal">Build-Depends-Indep</code> settings in
<code class="filename">debian/control</code> are set properly. The best way to validate
this is to use the <code class="systemitem">debootstrap</code> package
to create an <code class="literal">unstable</code> chroot environment (see <a class="xref" href="tools.html#debootstrap" title="A.4.2. debootstrap">Section A.4.2, “<code class="systemitem">debootstrap</code>”</a>).
Within that chrooted environment, install the <code class="systemitem">build-essential</code> package and any package
dependencies mentioned in <code class="literal">Build-Depends</code> and/or
<code class="literal">Build-Depends-Indep</code>. Finally, try building your package
within that chrooted environment. These steps can be automated by the use of
the <span class="command"><strong>pbuilder</strong></span> program which is provided by the package of the
same name (see <a class="xref" href="tools.html#pbuilder" title="A.4.3. pbuilder">Section A.4.3, “<code class="systemitem">pbuilder</code>”</a>).
</p><p>
If you can't set up a proper chroot, <span class="command"><strong>dpkg-depcheck</strong></span> may be of
assistance (see <a class="xref" href="tools.html#dpkg-depcheck" title="A.6.7. dpkg-depcheck">Section A.6.7, “<span class="command"><strong>dpkg-depcheck</strong></span>”</a>).
</p><p>
See the <a class="ulink" href="http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/" target="_top">Debian Policy
Manual</a> for instructions on setting build dependencies.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Don't set architecture to a value other than <code class="literal">all</code> or
<code class="literal">any</code> unless you really mean it. In too many cases,
maintainers don't follow the instructions in the <a class="ulink" href="http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/" target="_top">Debian Policy Manual</a>. Setting your
architecture to only one architecture (such as <code class="literal">i386</code>
or <code class="literal">amd64</code>) is usually incorrect.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Make sure your source package is correct. Do <code class="literal">dpkg-source -x
<em class="replaceable"><code>package</code></em>.dsc</code> to make sure your source
package unpacks properly. Then, in there, try building your package from
scratch with <span class="command"><strong>dpkg-buildpackage</strong></span>.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Make sure you don't ship your source package with the
<code class="filename">debian/files</code> or <code class="filename">debian/substvars</code>
files. They should be removed by the <code class="literal">clean</code> target of
<code class="filename">debian/rules</code>.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Make sure you don't rely on locally installed or hacked configurations or
programs. For instance, you should never be calling programs in
<code class="filename">/usr/local/bin</code> or the like. Try not to rely on programs
being setup in a special way. Try building your package on another machine,
even if it's the same architecture.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Don't depend on the package you're building being installed already (a sub-case
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.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Don't rely on the compiler being a certain version, if possible. If not, then
make sure your build dependencies reflect the restrictions, although you are
probably asking for trouble, since different architectures sometimes
standardize on different compilers.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Make sure your <code class="filename">debian/rules</code> contains separate <code class="literal">binary-arch</code>
and <code class="literal">binary-indep</code> 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 <span class="command"><strong>dpkg-buildpackage -B</strong></span>.
</p></li></ol></div></div><div class="section" title="5.10.2. Guidelines for porter uploads"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="porter-guidelines"></a>5.10.2. Guidelines for porter uploads</h3></div></div></div><p>
If the package builds out of the box for the architecture to be ported to, you
are in luck and your job is easy. This section applies to that case; it
describes how to build and upload your binary package so that it is properly
installed into the archive. If you do have to patch the package in order to
get it to compile for the other architecture, you are actually doing a source
NMU, so consult <a class="xref" href="pkgs.html#nmu-guidelines" title="5.11.1. When and how to do an NMU">Section 5.11.1, “When and how to do an NMU”</a> instead.
</p><p>
For a porter upload, no changes are being made to the source. You do not need
to touch any of the files in the source package. This includes
<code class="filename">debian/changelog</code>.
</p><p>
The way to invoke <span class="command"><strong>dpkg-buildpackage</strong></span> is as
<code class="literal">dpkg-buildpackage -B
-m<em class="replaceable"><code>porter-email</code></em></code>. Of course, set
<em class="replaceable"><code>porter-email</code></em> to your email address. This will do a
binary-only build of only the architecture-dependent portions of the package,
using the <code class="literal">binary-arch</code> target in
<code class="filename">debian/rules</code>.
</p><p>
If you are working on a Debian machine for your porting efforts and you need to
sign your upload locally for its acceptance in the archive, you can run
<span class="command"><strong>debsign</strong></span> on your <code class="filename">.changes</code> file to have
it signed conveniently, or use the remote signing mode of
<span class="command"><strong>dpkg-sig</strong></span>.
</p><div class="section" title="5.10.2.1. Recompilation or binary-only NMU"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a id="binary-only-nmu"></a>5.10.2.1. Recompilation or binary-only NMU</h4></div></div></div><p>
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, 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
(<span class="command"><strong>dak</strong></span> refuses to install new packages if they don't have a
version number greater than the currently available one).
</p><p>
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 have inter-dependencies
generated using dpkg's substitution variable <code class="literal">$(Source-Version)</code>.
</p><p>
Despite the required modification of the changelog, these are called
binary-only NMUs — there is no need in this case to trigger all other
architectures to consider themselves out of date or requiring recompilation.
</p><p>
Such recompilations require special ``magic'' version numbering, so that the
archive maintenance tools recognize that, even though there is a new Debian
version, there is no corresponding source update. If you get this wrong, the
archive maintainers will reject your upload (due to lack of corresponding
source code).
</p><p>
The ``magic'' for a recompilation-only NMU is triggered by using a suffix
appended to the package version number, following the form
<code class="literal">b<em class="replaceable"><code>number</code></em></code>.
For instance, if the latest version you are recompiling against was version
<code class="literal">2.9-3</code>, your binary-only NMU should carry a version of
<code class="literal">2.9-3+b1</code>. If the latest version was <code class="literal">3.4+b1</code>
(i.e, a native package with a previous recompilation NMU), your
binary-only NMU should have a version number of <code class="literal">3.4+b2</code>.<sup>[<a id="idp20491832" href="#ftn.idp20491832" class="footnote">4</a>]</sup>
</p><p>
Similar to initial porter uploads, the correct way of invoking
<span class="command"><strong>dpkg-buildpackage</strong></span> is <code class="literal">dpkg-buildpackage -B</code>
to only build the architecture-dependent parts of the package.
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.10.2.2. When to do a source NMU if you are a porter"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a id="source-nmu-when-porter"></a>5.10.2.2. When to do a source NMU if you are a porter</h4></div></div></div><p>
Porters doing a source NMU generally follow the guidelines found in <a class="xref" href="pkgs.html#nmu" title="5.11. Non-Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)">Section 5.11, “Non-Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)”</a>, 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
the architecture is a candidate for inclusion into the next stable release; the
release managers decide and announce which architectures are candidates.
</p><p>
If you are a porter doing an NMU for <code class="literal">unstable</code>, 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 <code class="literal">unstable</code> 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 <code class="literal">stable</code> or
<code class="literal">testing</code>, please coordinate with the appropriate release
team first.
</p><p>
Secondly, porters doing source NMUs should make sure that the bug they submit
to the BTS should be of severity <code class="literal">serious</code> 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.
</p><p>
Porters should try to avoid patches which simply kludge around bugs in the
current version of the compile environment, kernel, or libc. Sometimes such
kludges can't be helped. If you have to kludge around compiler bugs and the
like, make sure you <code class="literal">#ifdef</code> your work properly; also,
document your kludge so that people know to remove it once the external
problems have been fixed.
</p><p>
Porters may also have an unofficial location where they can put the results of
their work during the waiting period. This helps others running the port have
the benefit of the porter's work, even during the waiting period. Of course,
such locations have no official blessing or status, so buyer beware.
</p></div></div><div class="section" title="5.10.3. Porting infrastructure and automation"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="porter-automation"></a>5.10.3. Porting infrastructure and automation</h3></div></div></div><p>
There is infrastructure and several tools to help automate package porting.
This section contains a brief overview of this automation and porting to these
tools; see the package documentation or references for full information.
</p><div class="section" title="5.10.3.1. Mailing lists and web pages"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a id="s5.10.3.1"></a>5.10.3.1. Mailing lists and web pages</h4></div></div></div><p>
Web pages containing the status of each port can be found at <a class="ulink" href="http://www.debian.org/ports/" target="_top">http://www.debian.org/ports/</a>.
</p><p>
Each port of Debian has a mailing list. The list of porting mailing lists can
be found at <a class="ulink" href="http://lists.debian.org/ports.html" target="_top">http://lists.debian.org/ports.html</a>. These
lists are used to coordinate porters, and to connect the users of a given port
with the porters.
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.10.3.2. Porter tools"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a id="s5.10.3.2"></a>5.10.3.2. Porter tools</h4></div></div></div><p>
Descriptions of several porting tools can be found in <a class="xref" href="tools.html#tools-porting" title="A.7. Porting tools">Section A.7, “Porting tools”</a>.
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.10.3.3. wanna-build"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a id="wanna-build"></a>5.10.3.3. <code class="systemitem">wanna-build</code></h4></div></div></div><p>
The <code class="systemitem">wanna-build</code> system is used as a
distributed, client-server build distribution system. It is usually used in
conjunction with build daemons running the <code class="systemitem">buildd</code>
program. <code class="literal">Build daemons</code> are ``slave'' hosts
which contact the central <code class="systemitem">wanna-build</code>
system to receive a list of packages that need to be built.
</p><p>
<code class="systemitem">wanna-build</code> 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, <code class="systemitem">sbuild</code> is available as a package, see its
description in <a class="xref" href="tools.html#sbuild" title="A.4.4. sbuild">Section A.4.4, “<code class="systemitem">sbuild</code>”</a>. 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.
</p><p>
Most of the data produced by <code class="systemitem">wanna-build</code>
which is generally useful to porters is available on the
web at <a class="ulink" href="http://buildd.debian.org/" target="_top">http://buildd.debian.org/</a>. This data includes nightly
updated statistics, queueing information and logs for build attempts.
</p><p>
We are quite proud of this system, since it has so many possible uses.
Independent development groups can use the system for different sub-flavors of
Debian, which may or may not really be of general interest (for instance, a
flavor of Debian built with <span class="command"><strong>gcc</strong></span> bounds checking). It will
also enable Debian to recompile entire distributions quickly.
</p><p>
The wanna-build team, in charge of the buildds,
can be reached at <code class="literal">debian-wb-team@lists.debian.org</code>.
To determine who (wanna-build team, release team) and how (mail, BTS)
to contact, refer to <a class="ulink" href="http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2009/03/msg00096.html" target="_top">http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2009/03/msg00096.html</a>.
</p><p>
When requesting binNMUs or give-backs (retries after a failed build),
please use the format described at <a class="ulink" href="http://release.debian.org/wanna-build.txt" target="_top">http://release.debian.org/wanna-build.txt</a>.
</p></div></div><div class="section" title="5.10.4. When your package is not portable"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="packages-arch-specific"></a>5.10.4. When your package is <span class="emphasis"><em>not</em></span> portable</h3></div></div></div><p>
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
available for <code class="literal">i386</code> and <code class="literal">amd64</code>), or uses
other hardware-specific features not supported on all architectures.
</p><p>
In order to prevent broken packages from being uploaded to the archive, and
wasting buildd time, you need to do a few things:
</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" type="disc"><li class="listitem"><p>
First, make sure your package <span class="emphasis"><em>does</em></span> fail to build on
architectures that it cannot support. There are a few ways to achieve this.
The preferred way is to have a small testsuite during build time that will test
the functionality, and fail if it doesn't work. This is a good idea anyway, as
this will prevent (some) broken uploads on all architectures, and also will
allow the package to build as soon as the required functionality is available.
</p><p>
Additionally, if you believe the list of supported architectures is pretty
constant, you should change <code class="literal">any</code> to a list of supported
architectures in <code class="filename">debian/control</code>. This way, the build will
fail also, and indicate this to a human reader without actually trying.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
In order to prevent autobuilders from needlessly trying to build your package,
it must be included in <code class="filename">Packages-arch-specific</code>, a list used
by the <span class="command"><strong>wanna-build</strong></span> script. The current version is available
as <a class="ulink" href="http://buildd.debian.org/quinn-diff/Packages-arch-specific" target="_top">http://buildd.debian.org/quinn-diff/Packages-arch-specific</a>;
please see the top of the file for whom to contact for changes.
</p></li></ul></div><p>
Please note that it is insufficient to only add your package to
<code class="filename">Packages-arch-specific</code> 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 <code class="systemitem">ftp.debian.org</code>.
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.10.5. Marking non-free packages as auto-buildable"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="non-free-buildd"></a>5.10.5. Marking non-free packages as auto-buildable</h3></div></div></div><p>
By default packages from the <code class="literal">non-free</code> 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:
</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
Check whether it is legally allowed and technically possible
to auto-build the package;
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Add <code class="literal">XS-Autobuild: yes</code> into the header part
of <code class="filename">debian/control</code>;
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Send an email to <code class="email">&lt;<a class="email" href="mailto:nonfree@release.debian.org">nonfree@release.debian.org</a>&gt;</code> and explain why the
package can legitimately and technically be auto-built.
</p></li></ol></div></div></div><div class="section" title="5.11. Non-Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a id="nmu"></a>5.11. Non-Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)</h2></div></div></div><p>
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
<span class="emphasis"><em>Non-Maintainer Uploads (NMU)</em></span>.
</p><div class="section" title="5.11.1. When and how to do an NMU"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="nmu-guidelines"></a>5.11.1. When and how to do an NMU</h3></div></div></div><p>
Before doing an NMU, consider the following questions:
</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" type="disc"><li class="listitem"><p>
Does your NMU really fix bugs? Fixing cosmetic issues or changing the
packaging style in NMUs is discouraged.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
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?
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
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.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
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).
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
If the maintainer is usually active and responsive, have you tried to contact
him? In general it should be considered preferable that a maintainer takes care
of an issue himself and that he is given the chance to review and correct your
patch, because he 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.
</p></li></ul></div><p>
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
<span class="command"><strong>nmudiff</strong></span> script in the <code class="systemitem">devscripts</code> package
might be helpful.
</p><p>
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
<a class="ulink" href="http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#s-readmesource" target="_top"><code class="filename">debian/README.source</code></a>.
</p><p>
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
<code class="literal">DELAYED</code> queue). Here are some recommended values to use for delays:
</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" type="disc"><li class="listitem"><p>
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
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Upload fixing only release-critical bugs older than 7 days: 2 days
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Upload fixing only release-critical and important bugs: 5 days
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Other NMUs: 10 days
</p></li></ul></div><p>
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 <code class="literal">unstable</code> sooner.
</p><p>
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 <a class="ulink" href="http://wiki.debian.org/LowThresholdNmu" target="_top">Low
Threshold NMU list</a>, 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.
</p><p>
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).
</p><p>
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.
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.11.2. NMUs and debian/changelog"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="nmu-changelog"></a>5.11.2. NMUs and <code class="filename">debian/changelog</code></h3></div></div></div><p>
Just like any other (source) upload, NMUs must add an entry to
<code class="filename">debian/changelog</code>, telling what has changed with this
upload. The first line of this entry must explicitely mention that this upload is an NMU, e.g.:
</p><pre class="screen">
* Non-maintainer upload.
</pre><p>
The way to version NMUs differs for native and non-native packages.
</p><p>
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
<code class="literal">+nmu<em class="replaceable"><code>X</code></em></code>, where
<em class="replaceable"><code>X</code></em> is a counter starting at <code class="literal">1</code>.
If
the last upload was also an NMU, the counter should be increased. For example,
if the current version is <code class="literal">1.5</code>, then an NMU would get
version <code class="literal">1.5+nmu1</code>.
</p><p>
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 <code class="literal">1</code>. For example,
if the current version is <code class="literal">1.5-2</code>, then an NMU would get
version <code class="literal">1.5-2.1</code>. If a new upstream version
is packaged in the NMU, the Debian revision is set to <code class="literal">0</code>, for
example <code class="literal">1.6-0.1</code>.
</p><p>
In both cases, if the last upload was also an NMU, the counter should
be increased. For example, if the current version is
<code class="literal">1.5+nmu3</code> (a native package which has already been
NMUed), the NMU would get version <code class="literal">1.5+nmu4</code>.
</p><p>
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.
</p><p>
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
<code class="literal">+deb<em class="replaceable"><code>XY</code></em>u<em class="replaceable"><code>Z</code></em></code>
should be used, where <em class="replaceable"><code>X</code></em> and
<em class="replaceable"><code>Y</code></em> are the major and minor release numbers, and
<em class="replaceable"><code>Z</code></em> is a counter starting at <code class="literal">1</code>.
When the release number is not yet known (often the case for
<code class="literal">testing</code>, at the beginning of release cycles), the lowest
release number higher than the last stable release number must be used. For
example, while Lenny (Debian 5.0) is stable, a security NMU to stable for a
package at version <code class="literal">1.5-3</code> would have version
<code class="literal">1.5-3+deb50u1</code>, whereas a security NMU to Squeeze would get
version <code class="literal">1.5-3+deb60u1</code>. After the release of Squeeze, security
uploads to the <code class="literal">testing</code> distribution will be versioned
<code class="literal">+deb61uZ</code>, until it is known whether that release will be
Debian 6.1 or Debian 7.0 (if that becomes the case, uploads will be versioned
as <code class="literal">+deb70uZ</code>).
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.11.3. Using the DELAYED/ queue"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="nmu-delayed"></a>5.11.3. Using the <code class="literal">DELAYED/</code> queue</h3></div></div></div><p>
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 <code class="literal">DELAYED</code> queue (see <a class="xref" href="pkgs.html#delayed-incoming" title="5.6.2. Delayed uploads">Section 5.6.2, “Delayed uploads”</a>)
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
<code class="literal">DELAYED/7</code> and tell the maintainer that he has 7 days to
react. During this time, the maintainer can ask you to delay the upload some
more, or cancel your upload.
</p><p>
The <code class="literal">DELAYED</code> 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 himself.
</p><p>
If you make an NMU to <code class="literal">DELAYED</code> and the maintainer updates
his 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.
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.11.4. NMUs from the maintainer's point of view"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="nmu-maintainer"></a>5.11.4. NMUs from the maintainer's point of view</h3></div></div></div><p>
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.
</p><p>
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.
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.11.5. Source NMUs vs Binary-only NMUs (binNMUs)"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="nmu-binnmu"></a>5.11.5. Source NMUs vs Binary-only NMUs (binNMUs)</h3></div></div></div><p>
The full name of an NMU is <span class="emphasis"><em>source NMU</em></span>. There is also
another type, namely the <span class="emphasis"><em>binary-only NMU</em></span>, or
<span class="emphasis"><em>binNMU</em></span>. A binNMU is also a package upload by someone
other than the package's maintainer. However, it is a binary-only upload.
</p><p>
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.
</p><p>
BinNMUs are usually triggered on the buildds by wanna-build.
An entry is added to <code class="filename">debian/changelog</code>,
explaining why the upload was needed and increasing the version number as
described in <a class="xref" href="pkgs.html#binary-only-nmu" title="5.10.2.1. Recompilation or binary-only NMU">Section 5.10.2.1, “Recompilation or binary-only NMU”</a>.
This entry should not be included in the next upload.
</p><p>
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 <code class="filename">debian/changelog</code>.
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.11.6. NMUs vs QA uploads"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="nmu-qa-upload"></a>5.11.6. NMUs vs QA uploads</h3></div></div></div><p>
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.
</p><p>
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 <code class="literal">Maintainer</code>
or <code class="literal">Uploader</code> for the package. Also, the changelog entry of a QA upload has a
special first line:
</p><pre class="screen">
* QA upload.
</pre><p>
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 <code class="literal">Debian QA Group
&lt;packages@qa.debian.org&gt;</code>. Orphaned packages which did
not yet have a QA upload still have their old maintainer set. There is a list
of them at <a class="ulink" href="http://qa.debian.org/orphaned.html" target="_top">http://qa.debian.org/orphaned.html</a>.
</p><p>
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 <a class="xref" href="pkgs.html#adopting" title="5.9.5. Adopting a package">Section 5.9.5, “Adopting a package”</a>).
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.11.7. NMUs vs team uploads"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="nmu-team-upload"></a>5.11.7. NMUs vs team uploads</h3></div></div></div><p>
Sometimes you are fixing and/or updating a package because you are member of a
packaging team (which uses a mailing list as <code class="literal">Maintainer</code> or <code class="literal">Uploader</code>, see <a class="xref" href="pkgs.html#collaborative-maint" title="5.12. Collaborative maintenance">Section 5.12, “Collaborative maintenance”</a>) but you don't want to add yourself to <code class="literal">Uploaders</code>
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 <code class="literal">Maintainer</code> or <code class="literal">Uploader</code>. In that case, you should
start your changelog entry with the following line:
</p><pre class="screen">
* Team upload.
</pre></div></div><div class="section" title="5.12. Collaborative maintenance"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a id="collaborative-maint"></a>5.12. Collaborative maintenance</h2></div></div></div><p>
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
<code class="literal">standard</code> or which are part of the base set have
co-maintainers.
</p><p>
Generally there is a primary maintainer and one or more co-maintainers. The
primary maintainer is the person whose name is listed in the
<code class="literal">Maintainer</code> field of the <code class="filename">debian/control</code>
file. Co-maintainers are all the other maintainers,
usually listed in the <code class="literal">Uploaders</code> field of the
<code class="filename">debian/control</code> file.
</p><p>
In its most basic form, the process of adding a new co-maintainer is quite
easy:
</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" type="disc"><li class="listitem"><p>
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 <code class="literal">CVS</code> or <code class="literal">Subversion</code>. Alioth (see
<a class="xref" href="resources.html#alioth" title="4.12. Debian's FusionForge installation: Alioth">Section 4.12, “Debian's FusionForge installation: Alioth”</a>) provides such tools, amongst others.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Add the co-maintainer's correct maintainer name and address to the
<code class="literal">Uploaders</code> field in the first paragraph of the
<code class="filename">debian/control</code> file.
</p><pre class="screen">
Uploaders: John Buzz &lt;jbuzz@debian.org&gt;, Adam Rex &lt;arex@debian.org&gt;
</pre></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Using the PTS (<a class="xref" href="resources.html#pkg-tracking-system" title="4.10. The Package Tracking System">Section 4.10, “The Package Tracking System”</a>), the co-maintainers
should subscribe themselves to the appropriate source package.
</p></li></ul></div><p>
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 <code class="literal">Maintainer</code> and <code class="literal">Uploaders</code> field of each package must be
managed with care. It is recommended to choose between one of the two
following schemes:
</p><div class="orderedlist"><ol class="orderedlist" type="1"><li class="listitem"><p>
Put the team member mainly responsible for the package in the <code class="literal">Maintainer</code> field.
In the <code class="literal">Uploaders</code>, put the mailing list address, and the team members who care
for the package.
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Put the mailing list address in the <code class="literal">Maintainer</code> field. In the <code class="literal">Uploaders</code> 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).
</p></li></ol></div><p>
In any case, it is a bad idea to automatically put all team members in the
<code class="literal">Uploaders</code> field. It clutters the Developer's Package Overview listing (see
<a class="xref" href="resources.html#ddpo" title="4.11. Developer's packages overview">Section 4.11, “Developer's packages overview”</a>) 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 <code class="literal">Uploaders</code> field just because they are
uploading the package once, they can do a “Team upload” (see <a class="xref" href="pkgs.html#nmu-team-upload" title="5.11.7. NMUs vs team uploads">Section 5.11.7, “NMUs vs team uploads”</a>). Conversely, it is a bad idea to keep a
package with only the mailing list address as a <code class="literal">Maintainer</code> and no
<code class="literal">Uploaders</code>.
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.13. The testing distribution"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h2 class="title" style="clear: both"><a id="testing"></a>5.13. The testing distribution</h2></div></div></div><div class="section" title="5.13.1. Basics"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="testing-basics"></a>5.13.1. Basics</h3></div></div></div><p>
Packages are usually installed into the <code class="literal">testing</code> distribution
after they have undergone some degree of <code class="literal">testing</code> in
<code class="literal">unstable</code>.
</p><p>
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 <code class="literal">testing</code>.
This way, <code class="literal">testing</code> should always be close to
being a release candidate. Please see below for details.
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.13.2. Updates from unstable"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="testing-unstable"></a>5.13.2. Updates from unstable</h3></div></div></div><p>
The scripts that update the <code class="literal">testing</code> distribution are run
twice each day, right after the installation of the updated packages; these
scripts are called <code class="literal">britney</code>. They generate the
<code class="filename">Packages</code> files for the <code class="literal">testing</code>
distribution, but they do so in an intelligent manner; they try to avoid any
inconsistency and to use only non-buggy packages.
</p><p>
The inclusion of a package from <code class="literal">unstable</code> is conditional on
the following:
</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" type="disc"><li class="listitem"><p>
The package must have been available in <code class="literal">unstable</code> 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 <code class="literal">testing</code> transition is taken into account. Those
delays may be doubled during a freeze, or <code class="literal">testing</code>
transitions may be switched off altogether;
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
It must not have new release-critical bugs (RC bugs affecting the version
available in <code class="literal">unstable</code>, but not affecting the version in
<code class="literal">testing</code>);
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
It must be available on all architectures on which it has previously been built
in <code class="literal">unstable</code>. <a class="link" href="resources.html#dak-ls" title="4.9.2. The dak ls utility">dak ls</a> may be of interest
to check that information;
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
It must not break any dependency of a package which is already available in
<code class="literal">testing</code>;
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
The packages on which it depends must either be available in
<code class="literal">testing</code> or they must be accepted into
<code class="literal">testing</code> at the same time (and they will be if they fulfill
all the necessary criteria).
</p></li></ul></div><p>
To find out whether a package is progressing into <code class="literal">testing</code>
or not, see the <code class="literal">testing</code> script output on the <a class="ulink" href="http://www.debian.org/devel/testing" target="_top">web page of the testing
distribution</a>, or use the program <span class="command"><strong>grep-excuses</strong></span> which
is in the <code class="systemitem">devscripts</code> package. This
utility can easily be used in a <span class="citerefentry"><span class="refentrytitle">crontab</span>(5)</span>
to keep yourself informed of the progression of your packages into
<code class="literal">testing</code>.
</p><p>
The <code class="filename">update_excuses</code> file does not always give the precise
reason why the package is refused; you may have to find it on your own by
looking for what would break with the inclusion of the package. The <a class="ulink" href="http://www.debian.org/devel/testing" target="_top">testing web page</a> gives some
more information about the usual problems which may be causing such troubles.
</p><p>
Sometimes, some packages never enter <code class="literal">testing</code> because the
set of interrelationship is too complicated and cannot be sorted out by the
scripts. See below for details.
</p><p>
Some further dependency analysis is shown on <a class="ulink" href="http://release.debian.org/migration/" target="_top">http://release.debian.org/migration/</a> — but be warned, this page also
shows build dependencies which are not considered by britney.
</p><div class="section" title="5.13.2.1. Out-of-date"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a id="outdated"></a>5.13.2.1. Out-of-date</h4></div></div></div><p>
For the <code class="literal">testing</code> migration script, outdated means: There are
different versions in <code class="literal">unstable</code> for the release architectures
(except for the architectures in fuckedarches; fuckedarches is a list of
architectures that don't keep up (in <code class="filename">update_out.py</code>), but
currently, it's empty). outdated has nothing whatsoever to do with the
architectures this package has in <code class="literal">testing</code>.
</p><p>
Consider this example:
</p><div class="informaltable"><table width="100%" border="1"><colgroup><col /><col /><col /></colgroup><thead><tr><th> </th><th>alpha</th><th>arm</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>testing</td><td>1</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>unstable</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
The package is out of date on <code class="literal">alpha</code> in <code class="literal">unstable</code>, and will
not go to <code class="literal">testing</code>. Removing the package would not help at all, the
package is still out of date on <code class="literal">alpha</code>, and will not
propagate to <code class="literal">testing</code>.
</p><p>
However, if ftp-master removes a package in <code class="literal">unstable</code> (here
on <code class="literal">arm</code>):
</p><div class="informaltable"><table width="100%" border="1"><colgroup><col /><col /><col /><col /></colgroup><thead><tr><th> </th><th>alpha</th><th>arm</th><th>hurd-i386</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>testing</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>-</td></tr><tr><td>unstable</td><td>2</td><td>-</td><td>1</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
In this case, the package is up to date on all release architectures in
<code class="literal">unstable</code> (and the extra <code class="literal">hurd-i386</code>
doesn't matter, as it's not a release architecture).
</p><p>
Sometimes, the question is raised if it is possible to allow packages in that
are not yet built on all architectures: No. Just plainly no. (Except if you
maintain glibc or so.)
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.13.2.2. Removals from testing"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a id="removals"></a>5.13.2.2. Removals from testing</h4></div></div></div><p>
Sometimes, a package is removed to allow another package in: This happens only
to allow <span class="emphasis"><em>another</em></span> package to go in if it's ready in every
other sense. Suppose e.g. that <code class="literal">a</code> cannot be installed
with the new version of <code class="literal">b</code>; then <code class="literal">a</code> may
be removed to allow <code class="literal">b</code> in.
</p><p>
Of course, there is another reason to remove a package from <code class="literal">testing</code>:
It's just too buggy (and having a single RC-bug is enough to be
in this state).
</p><p>
Furthermore, if a package has been removed from <code class="literal">unstable</code>,
and no package in <code class="literal">testing</code> depends on it any more, then it
will automatically be removed.
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.13.2.3. Circular dependencies"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a id="circular"></a>5.13.2.3. Circular dependencies</h4></div></div></div><p>
A situation which is not handled very well by britney is if package
<code class="literal">a</code> depends on the new version of package
<code class="literal">b</code>, and vice versa.
</p><p>
An example of this is:
</p><div class="informaltable"><table width="100%" border="1"><colgroup><col /><col /><col /></colgroup><thead><tr><th> </th><th>testing</th><th>unstable</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>a</td><td>1; depends: b=1</td><td>2; depends: b=2</td></tr><tr><td>b</td><td>1; depends: a=1</td><td>2; depends: a=2</td></tr></tbody></table></div><p>
Neither package <code class="literal">a</code> nor package <code class="literal">b</code> is
considered for update.
</p><p>
Currently, this requires some manual hinting from the release team. Please
contact them by sending mail to <code class="email">&lt;<a class="email" href="mailto:debian-release@lists.debian.org">debian-release@lists.debian.org</a>&gt;</code> if this
happens to one of your packages.
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.13.2.4. Influence of package in testing"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a id="s5.13.2.4"></a>5.13.2.4. Influence of package in testing</h4></div></div></div><p>
Generally, there is nothing that the status of a package in <code class="literal">testing</code>
means for transition of the next version from <code class="literal">unstable</code>
to <code class="literal">testing</code>, 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
<code class="literal">testing</code> 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 <code class="literal">unstable</code>
at all during the <code class="literal">testing</code> migration.
</p><p>
In summary this means: The only influence that a package being in
<code class="literal">testing</code> has on a new version of the same package is that the new
version might go in easier.
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.13.2.5. Details"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a id="details"></a>5.13.2.5. Details</h4></div></div></div><p>
If you are interested in details, this is how britney works:
</p><p>
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.)
</p><p>
Now, the more complex part happens: Britney tries to update <code class="literal">testing</code>
with the valid candidates. For that, britney tries to add each
valid candidate to the testing distribution. If the number of uninstallable
packages in <code class="literal">testing</code> doesn't increase, the package is
accepted. From that point on, the accepted package is considered to be part
of <code class="literal">testing</code>, 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.
</p><p>
If you want to see more details, you can look it up on <a class="ulink" href="http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/update_output/" target="_top">http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/update_output/</a>.
</p><p>
The hints are available via <a class="ulink" href="http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/hints/" target="_top">http://ftp-master.debian.org/testing/hints/</a>.
</p></div></div><div class="section" title="5.13.3. Direct updates to testing"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="t-p-u"></a>5.13.3. Direct updates to testing</h3></div></div></div><p>
The <code class="literal">testing</code> distribution is fed with packages from
<code class="literal">unstable</code> according to the rules explained above. However,
in some cases, it is necessary to upload packages built only for
<code class="literal">testing</code>. For that, you may want to upload to
<code class="literal">testing-proposed-updates</code>.
</p><p>
Keep in mind that packages uploaded there are not automatically processed, they
have to go through the hands of the release manager. So you'd better have a
good reason to upload there. In order to know what a good reason is in the
release managers' eyes, you should read the instructions that they regularly
give on <code class="email">&lt;<a class="email" href="mailto:debian-devel-announce@lists.debian.org">debian-devel-announce@lists.debian.org</a>&gt;</code>.
</p><p>
You should not upload to <code class="literal">testing-proposed-updates</code> when you
can update your packages through <code class="literal">unstable</code>. If you can't
(for example because you have a newer development version in <code class="literal">unstable</code>),
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 <code class="literal">unstable</code> are possible, if the upload via
<code class="literal">unstable</code> does not pull in any new dependencies.
</p><p>
Version numbers are usually selected by adding the codename of the
<code class="literal">testing</code> distribution and a running number, like
<code class="literal">1.2squeeze1</code> for the first upload through
<code class="literal">testing-proposed-updates</code> of package version
<code class="literal">1.2</code>.
</p><p>
Please make sure you didn't miss any of these items in your upload:
</p><div class="itemizedlist"><ul class="itemizedlist" type="disc"><li class="listitem"><p>
Make sure that your package really needs to go through
<code class="literal">testing-proposed-updates</code>, and can't go through
<code class="literal">unstable</code>;
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Make sure that you included only the minimal amount of changes;
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Make sure that you included an appropriate explanation in the changelog;
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Make sure that you've written <code class="literal">testing</code> or
<code class="literal">testing-proposed-updates</code> into your target distribution;
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Make sure that you've built and tested your package in
<code class="literal">testing</code>, not in <code class="literal">unstable</code>;
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
Make sure that your version number is higher than the version in
<code class="literal">testing</code> and <code class="literal">testing-proposed-updates</code>,
and lower than in <code class="literal">unstable</code>;
</p></li><li class="listitem"><p>
After uploading and successful build on all platforms, contact the release team
at <code class="email">&lt;<a class="email" href="mailto:debian-release@lists.debian.org">debian-release@lists.debian.org</a>&gt;</code> and ask them to approve your upload.
</p></li></ul></div></div><div class="section" title="5.13.4. Frequently asked questions"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h3 class="title"><a id="faq"></a>5.13.4. Frequently asked questions</h3></div></div></div><div class="section" title="5.13.4.1. What are release-critical bugs, and how do they get counted?"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a id="rc"></a>5.13.4.1. What are release-critical bugs, and how do they get counted?</h4></div></div></div><p>
All bugs of some higher severities are by default considered release-critical;
currently, these are <code class="literal">critical</code>, <code class="literal">grave</code> and
<code class="literal">serious</code> bugs.
</p><p>
Such bugs are presumed to have an impact on the chances that the package will
be released with the <code class="literal">stable</code> release of Debian: in general,
if a package has open release-critical bugs filed on it, it won't get into
<code class="literal">testing</code>, and consequently won't be released in
<code class="literal">stable</code>.
</p><p>
The <code class="literal">unstable</code> bug count are all release-critical bugs which
are marked to apply to <em class="replaceable"><code>package</code></em>/<em class="replaceable"><code>version</code></em>
combinations that are available in unstable for a release
architecture. The <code class="literal">testing</code> bug count is defined analogously.
</p></div><div class="section" title="5.13.4.2. How could installing a package into testing possibly break other packages?"><div class="titlepage"><div><div><h4 class="title"><a id="s5.13.4.2"></a>5.13.4.2. How could installing a package into <code class="literal">testing</code> possibly
break other packages?</h4></div></div></div><p>
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 <code class="literal">acmefoo</code> is installed into <code class="literal">testing</code>,
along with its binary packages <code class="literal">acme-foo-bin</code>,
<code class="literal">acme-bar-bin</code>, <code class="literal">libacme-foo1</code> and
<code class="literal">libacme-foo-dev</code>, the old version is removed.
</p><p>
However, the old version may have provided a binary package with an old soname
of a library, such as <code class="literal">libacme-foo0</code>. Removing the old
<code class="literal">acmefoo</code> will remove <code class="literal">libacme-foo0</code>, which
will break any packages which depend on it.
</p><p>
Evidently, this mainly affects packages which provide changing sets of binary
packages in different versions (in turn, mainly libraries). However, it will
also affect packages upon which versioned dependencies have been declared of
the ==, &lt;=, or &lt;&lt; varieties.
</p><p>
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 <code class="literal">testing</code> breaks all the packages that depended on
it in <code class="literal">testing</code>,
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
is normally required.
</p><p>
If you are having problems with complicated groups of packages like this,
contact <code class="email">&lt;<a class="email" href="mailto:debian-devel@lists.debian.org">debian-devel@lists.debian.org</a>&gt;</code> or <code class="email">&lt;<a class="email" href="mailto:debian-release@lists.debian.org">debian-release@lists.debian.org</a>&gt;</code> for help.
</p></div></div></div><div class="footnotes"><br /><hr width="100" align="left" /><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp20423976" href="#idp20423976" class="para">3</a>] </sup> See the <a class="ulink" href="http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/" target="_top">Debian Policy Manual</a> for
guidelines on what section a package belongs in. </p></div><div class="footnote"><p><sup>[<a id="ftn.idp20491832" href="#idp20491832" class="para">4</a>] </sup>
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.
</p></div></div></div><div class="navfooter"><hr /><table width="100%" summary="Navigation footer"><tr><td width="40%" align="left"><a accesskey="p" href="resources.html">Prev</a> </td><td width="20%" align="center"> </td><td width="40%" align="right"> <a accesskey="n" href="best-pkging-practices.html">Next</a></td></tr><tr><td width="40%" align="left" valign="top">Chapter 4. Resources for Debian Developers </td><td width="20%" align="center"><a accesskey="h" href="index.html">Home</a></td><td width="40%" align="right" valign="top"> Chapter 6. Best Packaging Practices</td></tr></table></div></body></html>
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink