/[ddp]/manuals/trunk/developers-reference/pkgs.dbk

Diff of /manuals/trunk/developers-reference/pkgs.dbk

Parent Directory | Revision Log | View Patch Patch

-revision 5219 by he,
Sat Jun  7 10:47:12 2008 UTC
+revision 7071 by hertzog,
Sun Feb 14 17:46:38 2010 UTC
 Line 28 
 description of the package, the license
  current URL where it can be downloaded from.
  </para>
  <para>
- You should set the subject of the bug to ``ITP: <replaceable>foo</replaceable>
+ You should set the subject of the bug to <literal>ITP:
- -- <replaceable>short description</replaceable>'', substituting the name of the
+ <replaceable>foo</replaceable> -- <replaceable>short
- new package for <replaceable>foo</replaceable>.  The severity of the bug report
+ description</replaceable></literal>, substituting the name of the new
- must be set to <literal>wishlist</literal>.  If you feel it's necessary, send
+ package for <replaceable>foo</replaceable>.
- a copy to &email-debian-devel; by putting the address in the
+ The severity of the bug report must be set to <literal>wishlist</literal>.
- <literal>X-Debbugs-CC:</literal> header of the message (no, don't use
+ Please send a copy to &email-debian-devel; by using the X-Debbugs-CC
- <literal>CC:</literal>, because that way the message's subject won't indicate
+ header (don't use CC:, because that way the message's subject won't
- the bug number).
+ indicate the bug number). If you are packaging so many new packages (>10)
- </para>
+ that notifying the mailing list in seperate messages is too disruptive,
- <para>
+ send a summary after filing the bugs to the debian-devel list instead.
- Please include a <literal>Closes:
+ This will inform the other developers about upcoming packages and will
- bug#<replaceable>nnnnn</replaceable></literal> entry in the changelog of the
+ allow a review of your description and package name.
- new package in order for the bug report to be automatically closed once the new
+ </para>
- package is installed in the archive (see <xref linkend="upload-bugfix"/> ).
+ <para>
+ Please include a <literal>Closes: #<replaceable>nnnnn</replaceable></literal>
+ 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 <xref linkend="upload-bugfix"/>).
+ </para>
+ <para>
+ If you think your package needs some explanations for the administrators of the
+ NEW package queue, include them in your changelog, send to ftpmaster@debian.org
+ 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.
  </para>
  <para>
  When closing security bugs include CVE numbers as well as the Closes: #nnnnn.
-Line 213 
 distinction between the original sources
+Line 223 
 distinction between the original sources
  <listitem>
  <para>
  the (more common) packages where there's an original source tarball file
- accompanied by another file that contains the patches applied for Debian
+ accompanied by another file that contains the changes made by Debian
  </para>
  </listitem>
  </itemizedlist>
  <para>
  For the native packages, the source package includes a Debian source control
  file (<literal>.dsc</literal>) and the source tarball
- (<literal>.tar.gz</literal>).  A source package of a non-native package
+ (<literal>.tar.{gz,bz2,lzma}</literal>). A source package of a non-native package
  includes a Debian source control file, the original source tarball
- (<literal>.orig.tar.gz</literal>) and the Debian patches
+ (<literal>.orig.tar.{gz,bz2,lzma}</literal>) and the Debian changes
- (<literal>.diff.gz</literal>).
+ (<literal>.diff.gz</literal> for the source format “1.0” or
+ <literal>.debian.tar.{gz,bz2,lzma}</literal> for the source format “3.0 (quilt)”).
  </para>
  <para>
- Whether a package is native or not is determined when it is built by
+ With source format “1.0”, whether a package is native or not was determined
- <citerefentry> <refentrytitle>dpkg-buildpackage</refentrytitle>
+ by <command>dpkg-source</command> at build time. Nowadays it is recommended
- <manvolnum>1</manvolnum> </citerefentry>.  The rest of this section relates
+ to be explicit about the desired source format by putting either “3.0 (quilt)”
- only to non-native packages.
+ or “3.0 (native)” in <filename>debian/source/format</filename>.
+ The rest of this section relates only to non-native packages.
  </para>
  <para>
  The first time a version is uploaded which corresponds to a particular upstream
-Line 241 
 will not need to be re-uploaded.
+Line 253 
 will not need to be re-uploaded.
  <para>
  By default, <command>dpkg-genchanges</command> and
  <command>dpkg-buildpackage</command> will include the original source tar file
- if and only if the Debian revision part of the source version number is 0 or 1,
+ if and only if the current changelog entry has a different upstream version
- indicating a new upstream version.  This behavior may be modified by using
+ from the preceding entry. This behavior may be modified by using
  <literal>-sa</literal> to always include it or <literal>-sd</literal> to always
  leave it out.
  </para>
-Line 255 
 the archive.
+Line 267 
 the archive.
  </para>
  <para>
  Please notice that, in non-native packages, permissions on files that are not
- present in the .orig.tar.gz will not be preserved, as diff does not store file
+ present in the .orig.tar.{gz,bz2} will not be preserved, as diff does not store file
- permissions in the patch.
+ permissions in the patch. However when using source format “3.0 (quilt)”,
+ permissions of files inside the <filename>debian</filename> directory are
+ preserved since they are stored in a tar archive.
  </para>
  </section>
-Line 270 
 The package build process extracts this
+Line 284 
 The package build process extracts this
  </para>
  <para>
  There are several possible values for this field: <literal>stable</literal>,
- <literal>unstable</literal>, <litersl>testing-proposed-updates</literal> and
+ <literal>unstable</literal>, <literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal> and
  <literal>experimental</literal>.  Normally, packages are uploaded into
  <literal>unstable</literal>.
  </para>
-Line 287 
 time.
+Line 301 
 time.
  <title>Special case: uploads to the <literal>stable</literal> and
  <literal>oldstable</literal> distributions</title>
  <para>
- Uploading to <literal>stable</literal> means that the package will transfered
+ Uploading to <literal>stable</literal> means that the package will transferred
  to the <literal>proposed-updates-new</literal> queue for review by the stable
  release managers, and if approved will be installed in
  <filename>stable-proposed-updates</filename> directory of the Debian archive.
-Line 372 
 section</link> for details.
+Line 386 
 section</link> for details.
  <title>Uploading to <literal>ftp-master</literal></title>
  <para>
  To upload a package, you should upload the files (including the signed changes
- and dsc-file) with anonymous ftp to <literal>&ftp-master-host;</literal> in
+ and dsc-file) with anonymous ftp to <literal>&ftp-upload-host;</literal> in
  the directory <ulink
- url="ftp://&ftp-master-host;&upload-queue;">&upload-queue;</ulink>.
+ url="ftp://&ftp-upload-host;&upload-queue;">&upload-queue;</ulink>.
  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 <ulink url="&url-wiki-dm;"></ulink>).
-Line 390 
 linkend="dput"/> useful when uploading p
+Line 404 
 linkend="dput"/> useful when uploading p
  automate the process of uploading packages into Debian.
  </para>
  <para>
- For removing packages, please see the README file in that ftp directory, and
+ For removing packages, please see
+ <ulink url="ftp://&ftp-upload-host;&upload-queue;/README"/> and
  the Debian package <xref linkend="dcut"/> .
  </para>
  </section>
  <section id="delayed-incoming">
  <title>Delayed uploads</title>
  <para>
- Delayed uploads are done for the moment via the delayed queue at <literal>gluck
+ It is sometimes useful to upload a package immediately, but to want this
- </literal>. The upload-directory is
+ package to arrive in the archive only a few days later. For example,
- <literal>gluck:~tfheen/DELAYED/[012345678]-day</literal>. 0-day is uploaded
+ when preparing a <link linkend="nmu">Non-maintainer Upload</link>,
- multiple times per day to <literal>&ftp-master-host;</literal>.
+ you might want to give the maintainer a few days to react.
- </para>
- <para>
- With a fairly recent dput, this section
  </para>
- <screen>
- [tfheen_delayed]
- method = scp
- fqdn = gluck.debian.org
- incoming = ~tfheen
- </screen>
  <para>
- in <filename>~/.dput.cf</filename> should work fine for uploading to the
+ An upload to the delayed directory keeps the package in
- <literal>DELAYED</literal> queue.
+ <ulink url="http://ftp-master.debian.org/deferred.html">
+ the deferred uploads queue"</ulink>.
+ 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
+ <literal>&ftp-upload-host;</literal> in upload-directory
+ <literal>DELAYED/[012345678]-day</literal>. 0-day is uploaded
+ multiple times per day to <literal>&ftp-upload-host;</literal>.
  </para>
  <para>
- <emphasis>Note:</emphasis> Since this upload queue goes to
+ With dput, you can use the <literal>--delayed <replaceable>DELAY</replaceable></literal>
- <literal>&ftp-master-host;</literal>, the prescription found in <xref
+ parameter to put the package into one of the queues.
- linkend="upload-ftp-master"/> applies here as well.
  </para>
  </section>
-Line 438 
 see section <xref linkend="bug-security"
+Line 452 
 see section <xref linkend="bug-security"
  <section id="s5.6.5">
  <title>Other upload queues</title>
  <para>
- The scp queues on <literal>&ftp-master-host;</literal>, and <literal>
+ There is an alternative upload queue in Europe at <ulink
- security.debian.org</literal> are mostly unusable due to the login restrictions
+ url="ftp://&ftp-eu-upload-host;&upload-queue;"/>. It operates in
- on those hosts.
+ the same way as <literal>&ftp-upload-host;</literal>, but should be faster
- </para>
+ for European developers.
- <para>
- The anonymous queues on ftp.uni-erlangen.de and ftp.uk.debian.org are currently
- down.  Work is underway to resurrect them.
  </para>
  <para>
- The queues on master.debian.org, samosa.debian.org, master.debian.or.jp, and
+ Packages can also be uploaded via ssh to
- ftp.chiark.greenend.org.uk are down permanently, and will not be resurrected.
+ <literal>&ssh-upload-host;</literal>; files should be put
- The queue in Japan will be replaced with a new queue on hp.debian.or.jp some
+ <literal>/srv/upload.debian.org/UploadQueue</literal>. This queue does
- day.
+ not support <xref linkend="delayed-incoming">delayed uploads</xref>.
  </para>
  </section>
-Line 508 
 file</literal>.
+Line 519 
 file</literal>.
  <para>
  To alter the actual section that a package is put in, you need to first make
  sure that the <filename>debian/control</filename> file in your package is
- accurate.  Next, send an email &email-override; or submit a
+ accurate.  Next, submit a
  bug against <systemitem role="package">ftp.debian.org</systemitem> requesting
  that the section or priority for your package be changed from the old section
- or priority to the new one.  Be sure to explain your reasoning.
+ or priority to the new one. Use a Subject like
+ <literal>override: PACKAGE1:section/priority, [...],
+   PACKAGEX:section/priority</literal>, and include the justification for the
+ change in the body of the bug report.
  </para>
  <para>
  For more information about <literal>override files</literal>, see
-Line 662 
 procedure</ulink>.
+Line 676 
 procedure</ulink>.
  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 <link linkend="irc-channels">IRC</link> or
- on &email-debian-devel;.  Please make sure that the
+ on &email-debian-devel;.  Please inform the maintainer(s) of the package
- maintainer(s) of the package the bug is reassigned to know why you reassigned
+ you reassign the bug to, for example by Cc:ing the message that does the
- it.
+ reassign to <email>packagename@packages.debian.org</email> and explaining
+ your reasons in that mail. Please note that a simple reassignment is
+ <emphasis>not</emphasis> 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.
  </para>
  <para>
+ 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.
+ </para>
+ </listitem>
+ <listitem>
+ <para>
  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
-Line 721 
 several developers working on the same p
+Line 749 
 several developers working on the same p
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
- Once a corrected package is available in the <literal>unstable</literal>
+ Once a corrected package is available in the archive, the bug should be
- distribution, you can close the bug.  This can be done automatically, read
+ closed indicating the version in which it was fixed. This can be done
- <xref linkend="upload-bugfix"/> .
+ automatically, read <xref linkend="upload-bugfix"/>.
  </para>
  </listitem>
  </orderedlist>
-Line 810 
 outstanding security problems, helping m
+Line 838 
 outstanding security problems, helping m
  fixing them themselves, sending security advisories, and maintaining
  <literal>security.debian.org</literal>.
  </para>
- <!-- information about the security database goes here once it's ready -->
- <!-- (mdz) -->
  <para>
  When you become aware of a security-related bug in a Debian package, whether or
  not you are the maintainer, collect pertinent information about the problem,
  and promptly contact the security team at
  &email-security-team; as soon as possible.  <emphasis
- role="strong">DO NOT UPLOAD</emphasis> any packages for <literal>stable</literal>;
+ role="strong">DO NOT UPLOAD</emphasis> any packages for <literal>stable</literal>
-  the security team will do that.  Useful information includes, for example:
+ without contacting the team.  Useful information includes, for example:
  </para>
  <itemizedlist>
  <listitem>
-Line 853 
 linkend="bug-security-advisories"/> )
+Line 879 
 linkend="bug-security-advisories"/> )
  </para>
  </listitem>
  </itemizedlist>
+ <para>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.</para>
+ <section id="bug-security-tracker">
+ <title>The Security Tracker</title>
+ <para>
+ The security team maintains a central database, the
+ <ulink url="http://security-tracker.debian.org/">Debian Security Tracker</ulink>.
+ 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.
+ </para>
+ <para>
+ 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.
+ </para>
+ </section>
  <section id="bug-security-confidentiality">
  <title>Confidentiality</title>
  <para>
-Line 922 
 There are two reasons for releasing info
+Line 971 
 There are two reasons for releasing info
  requested: the problem has been known for a while, or the problem or exploit
  has become public.
  </para>
+ <para>
+ The Security Team has a PGP-key to enable encrypted communication about
+ sensitive issues. See the <ulink url="http://www.debian.org/security/faq#contact">Security Team FAQ</ulink> for details.
+ </para>
  </section>
  <section id="bug-security-advisories">
-Line 1058 
 Be sure to verify the following items:
+Line 1111 
 Be sure to verify the following items:
  <itemizedlist>
  <listitem>
  <para>
- Target the right distribution in your <filename>debian/changelog</filename>.
+ <emphasis role="strong">Target the right distribution</emphasis>
+ in your <filename>debian/changelog</filename>.
  For <literal>stable</literal> this is <literal>stable-security</literal> and
- for testing this is <literal>testing-security</literal>, and for the previous
+ for <literal>testing</literal> this is <literal>testing-security</literal>, and for the previous
  stable release, this is <literal>oldstable-security</literal>.  Do not target
  <replaceable>distribution</replaceable><literal>-proposed-updates</literal> or
  <literal>stable</literal>!
-Line 1068 
 stable release, this is <literal>oldstab
+Line 1122 
 stable release, this is <literal>oldstab
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
- The upload should have urgency=high.
+ The upload should have <emphasis role="strong">urgency=high</emphasis>.
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
  Make descriptive, meaningful changelog entries.  Others will rely on them to
- determine whether a particular bug was fixed.  Always include an external
+ determine whether a particular bug was fixed.  Add <literal>closes:</literal>
- reference, preferably a CVE identifier, so that it can be cross-referenced.
+ statements for any <emphasis role="strong">Debian bugs</emphasis> filed.
- Include the same information in the changelog for <literal>unstable</literal>,
+ Always include an external reference, preferably a <emphasis role="strong">CVE
- so that it is clear
+ identifier</emphasis>, so that it can be cross-referenced. However, if a CVE
- that the same bug was fixed, as this is very helpful when verifying that the
+ identifier has not yet been assigned, do not wait for it but continue the
- bug is fixed in the next stable release.  If a CVE identifier has not yet been
+ process. The identifier can be cross-referenced later.
- assigned, the security team will request one so that it can be included in the
- package and in the advisory.
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
- Make sure the version number is proper.  It must be greater than the current
+ Make sure the <emphasis role="strong">version number</emphasis> is proper.
- package, but less than package versions in later distributions.  If in doubt,
+ It must be greater than the current package, but less than package versions in
- test it with <literal>dpkg --compare-versions</literal>.  Be careful not to
+ later distributions.  If in doubt, test it with <literal>dpkg
- re-use a version number that you have already used for a previous upload.  For
+ --compare-versions</literal>.  Be careful not to re-use a version number that
- <literal>testing</literal>, there must be a higher version in
+ you have already used for a previous upload, or one that conflicts with a
- <literal>unstable</literal>.  If there is none yet (for example, if
+ binNMU. The convention is to append
- <literal>testing</literal> and <literal>unstable</literal> have the same
+ <literal>+</literal><replaceable>codename</replaceable><literal>1</literal>, e.g.
- version) you must upload a new version to <literal>unstable</literal> first.
+ <literal>1:2.4.3-4+etch1</literal>, of course increasing 1 for any subsequent
- </para>
+ uploads.
- </listitem>
- <listitem>
- <para>
- Do not make source-only uploads if your package has any binary-all packages (do
- not use the <literal>-S</literal> option to
- <command>dpkg-buildpackage</command>).  The <command>buildd</command>
- infrastructure will not build those.  This point applies to normal package
- uploads as well.
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
  Unless the upstream source has been uploaded to <literal>security.debian.org
- </literal> before (by a previous security update), build the upload with full
+ </literal> before (by a previous security update), build the upload <emphasis
- upstream source (<literal>dpkg-buildpackage -sa</literal>).  If there has been
+ role="strong">with full upstream source</emphasis> (<literal>dpkg-buildpackage
- a previous upload to </literal>security.debian.org</literal> with the same
+ -sa</literal>).  If there has been a previous upload to
- upstream version, you may upload without upstream source (<literal>
+ <literal>security.debian.org</literal> with the same upstream version, you may
- dpkg-buildpackage -sd</literal>).
+ upload without upstream source (<literal> dpkg-buildpackage -sd</literal>).
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
- Be sure to use the exact same <filename>*.orig.tar.gz</filename> as used in the
+ Be sure to use the <emphasis role="strong">exact same
+ <filename>*.orig.tar.{gz,bz2}</filename></emphasis> as used in the
  normal archive, otherwise it is not possible to move the security fix into the
  main archives later.
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
- Build the package on a clean system which only has packages installed from the
+ Build the package on a <emphasis role="strong">clean system</emphasis> which only
- distribution you are building for.  If you do not have such a system yourself,
+ has packages installed from the distribution you are building for. If you do not
- you can use a debian.org machine (see <xref linkend="server-machines"/> ) or
+ have such a system yourself, you can use a debian.org machine (see
- setup a chroot (see <xref linkend="pbuilder"/> and <xref
+ <xref linkend="server-machines"/> ) or setup a chroot (see
- linkend="debootstrap"/> ).
+ <xref linkend="pbuilder"/> and <xref linkend="debootstrap"/> ).
  </para>
  </listitem>
  </itemizedlist>
-Line 1161 
 archives.  For security uploads, the pla
+Line 1206 
 archives.  For security uploads, the pla
  </para>
  <para>
  Once an upload to the security queue has been accepted, the package will
- automatically be rebuilt for all architectures and stored for verification by
+ automatically be built for all architectures and stored for verification by
  the security team.
  </para>
  <para>
-Line 1203 
 control information to place the package
+Line 1248 
 control information to place the package
  the package (see the <ulink
  url="&url-debian-policy;">Debian Policy Manual</ulink> for
  details).  You must ensure that you include the
- <filename>.orig.tar.gz</filename> in your upload (even if you are not uploading
+ <filename>.orig.tar.{gz,bz2}</filename> 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
-Line 1224 
 described in <xref linkend="override-fil
+Line 1269 
 described in <xref linkend="override-fil
  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 <literal>ftp.debian.org</literal> asking that the package be removed;
- as all bugs, this bug should normally have normal severity.  Make sure you
+ as all bugs, this bug should normally have normal severity.
- indicate which distribution the package should be removed from.  Normally, you
+ The bug title should be in the form <literal>RM: <replaceable>package
- can only have packages removed from <literal>unstable</literal> and
+ </replaceable> <replaceable>[architecture list]</replaceable> --
- <literal>experimental</literal>.  Packages are not removed from
+ <replaceable>reason</replaceable></literal>, where <replaceable>package</replaceable>
+ is the package to be removed and <replaceable>reason</replaceable> is a
+ short summary of the reason for the removal request.
+ <replaceable>[architecture list]</replaceable> is optional and only needed
+ if the removal request only applies to some architectures, not all. Note
+ that the <command>reportbug</command> will create a title conforming
+ to these rules when you use it to report a bug against the <literal>
+ ftp.debian.org</literal> pseudo-package.
+ </para>
+ <para>
+ If you want to remove a package you maintain, you should note this in
+ the bug title by prepending <literal>ROM</literal> (Request Of Maintainer).
+ There are several other standard acronyms used in the reasoning for a package
+ removal, see <ulink url="http://&ftp-master-host;/removals.html"></ulink>
+ for a complete list. That page also provides a convenient overview of
+ pending removal requests.
+ </para>
+ <para>
+ Note that removals can only be done for the <literal>unstable
+ </literal>, <literal>experimental</literal> and <literal>stable
+ </literal> distribution.  Packages are not removed from
  <literal>testing</literal> directly.  Rather, they will be removed
  automatically after the package has been removed from
- <literal>unstable</literal> and no package in <literal>testing</literal>
+ <literal>unstable</literal> and no package in <literal>testing
- depends on it.
+ </literal> depends on it.
  </para>
  <para>
  There is one exception when an explicit removal request is not necessary: If a
-Line 1251 
 supersedes the one to be removed.
+Line 1318 
 supersedes the one to be removed.
  <para>
  Usually you only ask for the removal of a package maintained by yourself.  If
  you want to remove another package, you have to get the approval of its
- maintainer.
+ maintainer. Should the package be orphaned and thus have no maintainer,
+ you should first discuss the removal request on &email-debian-qa;. If
+ there is a consensus that the package should be removed, you should
+ reassign and retitle the <literal>O:</literal> bug filed against the
+ <literal>wnpp</literal> package instead of filing a new bug as
+ removal request.
  </para>
  <para>
  Further information relating to these and other package removal related topics
-Line 1266 
 role="package">apt</systemitem> package.
+Line 1338 
 role="package">apt</systemitem> package.
  showpkg <replaceable>package</replaceable></literal>, the program will show
  details for <replaceable>package</replaceable>, including reverse depends.
  Other useful programs include <literal>apt-cache rdepends</literal>,
- <command>apt-rdepends</command> and <command>grep-dctrl</command>.  Removal of
+ <command>apt-rdepends</command>, <command>build-rdeps</command> (in the
+ <systemitem role="package">devscripts</systemitem> package) and
+ <command>grep-dctrl</command>.  Removal of
  orphaned packages is discussed on &email-debian-qa;.
  </para>
  <para>
-Line 1275 
 should either be reassigned to another p
+Line 1349 
 should either be reassigned to another p
  code has evolved into another package (e.g.  <literal>libfoo12</literal> was
  removed because <literal>libfoo13</literal> 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 <literal>&lt;most-recent-version-ever-in-Debian&gt;+rm</literal>.
  </para>
  <section id="s5.9.2.1">
  <title>Removing packages from <filename>Incoming</filename></title>
-Line 1296 
 occur too often anyway.
+Line 1374 
 occur too often anyway.
  <section id="s5.9.3">
  <title>Replacing or renaming packages</title>
  <para>
- When you make a mistake naming your package, you should follow a two-step
+ When the upstream maintainers for one of your packages chose to
- process to rename it.  First, set your <filename>debian/control</filename> file
+ rename their software (or you made a mistake naming your package),
- to replace and conflict with the obsolete name of the package (see the <ulink
+ you should follow a two-step process to rename it. In the first
- url="&url-debian-policy;">Debian Policy Manual</ulink> for
+ step, change the <filename>debian/control</filename> file to
- details).  Once you've uploaded the package and the package has moved into the
+ reflect the new name and to replace, provide and conflict with the
- archive, file a bug against <literal>ftp.debian.org</literal> asking to remove
+ obsolete package name (see the <ulink url="&url-debian-policy;">
- the package with the obsolete name.  Do not forget to properly reassign the
+ Debian Policy Manual</ulink> for details).  Please note that you
- package's bugs at the same time.
+ should only add a <literal>Provides</literal> 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 <literal>
+ ftp.debian.org</literal> asking to remove the package with the
+ obsolete name (see <xref linkend="removing-pkgs"/>).  Do not forget
+ to properly reassign the package's bugs at the same time.
  </para>
  <para>
  At other times, you may make a mistake in constructing your package and wish to
-Line 1313 
 Note that this applies to each part of y
+Line 1397 
 Note that this applies to each part of y
  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
  <filename>foo_1.00.orig.tar.gz</filename> with
- <filename>foo_1.00+0.orig.tar.gz</filename>.  This restriction gives each file
+ <filename>foo_1.00+0.orig.tar.gz</filename> or
- on the ftp site a unique name, which helps to ensure consistency across the
+ <filename>foo_1.00.orig.tar.bz2</filename>.  This restriction gives each
- mirror network.
+ file on the ftp site a unique name, which helps to ensure consistency
+ across the mirror network.
  </para>
  </section>
-Line 1581 
 source code).
+Line 1666 
 source code).
  <para>
  The ``magic'' for a recompilation-only NMU is triggered by using a suffix
  appended to the package version number, following the form <literal>
- b<replaceable>number<replaceable>.
+ b<replaceable>number</replaceable></literal>.
  For instance, if the latest version you are recompiling against was version
- <literal>2.9-3<literal>, your binary-only NMU should carry a version of
+ <literal>2.9-3</literal>, your binary-only NMU should carry a version of
  <literal>2.9-3+b1</literal>.  If the latest version was <literal>3.4+b1
  </literal> (i.e, a native package with a previous recompilation NMU), your
  binary-only NMU should have a version number of <literal>3.4+b2</literal>.
-Line 1712 
 flavor of Debian built with <command>gcc
+Line 1797 
 flavor of Debian built with <command>gcc
  also enable Debian to recompile entire distributions quickly.
  </para>
  <para>
- The buildds admins of each arch can be contacted at the mail address
+ The wanna-build team, in charge of the buildds,
- <literal><replaceable>arch</replaceable>@buildd.debian.org</literal>.
+ can be reached at <literal>debian-wb-team@lists.debian.org</literal>.
+ To determine who (wanna-build team, release team) and how (mail, BTS)
+ to contact, refer to <ulink url="&url-wb-team;"></ulink>.
  </para>
+ <para>
+ When requesting binNMUs or give-backs (retries after a failed build),
+ please use the format described at <ulink url="&url-release-wb;"/>.
+ </para>
  </section>
  </section>
-Line 1754 
 fail also, and indicate this to a human
+Line 1847 
 fail also, and indicate this to a human
  In order to prevent autobuilders from needlessly trying to build your package,
  it must be included in <filename>packages-arch-specific</filename>, a list used
  by the <command>wanna-build</command> script.  The current version is available
- as <ulink
+ as <ulink url="&url-buildd-p-a-s;"/>;
- url="&url-cvsweb;srcdep/Packages-arch-specific?cvsroot=dak"></ulink>;
  please see the top of the file for whom to contact for changes.
  </para>
  </listitem>
-Line 1776 
 role="package">ftp.debian.org</systemite
+Line 1868 
 role="package">ftp.debian.org</systemite
  <section id="nmu">
  <title>Non-Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)</title>
  <para>
- Under certain circumstances it is necessary for someone other than the official
+ Every package has one or more maintainers. Normally, these are the people who
- package maintainer to make a release of a package.  This is called a
+ work on and upload new versions of the package. In some situations, it is
- non-maintainer upload, or NMU.
+ useful that other developers can upload a new version as well, for example if
- </para>
+ they want to fix a bug in a package they don't maintain, when the maintainer
- <para>
+ needs help to respond to issues.  Such uploads are called
- This section handles only source NMUs, i.e.  NMUs which upload a new version of
+ <emphasis>Non-Maintainer Uploads (NMU)</emphasis>.
- the package.  For binary-only NMUs by porters or QA members, please see <xref
- linkend="binary-only-nmu"/> .  If a buildd builds and uploads a package, that
- too is strictly speaking a binary NMU.  See <xref linkend="wanna-build"/> for
- some more information.
- </para>
- <para>
- The main reason why NMUs are done is when a developer needs to fix another
- developer's package in order to address serious problems or crippling bugs or
- when the package maintainer is unable to release a fix in a timely fashion.
- </para>
- <para>
- First and foremost, it is critical that NMU patches to source should be as
- non-disruptive as possible.  Do not do housekeeping tasks, do not change the
- name of modules or files, do not move directories; in general, do not fix
- things which are not broken.  Keep the patch as small as possible.  If things
- bother you aesthetically, talk to the Debian maintainer, talk to the upstream
- maintainer, or submit a bug.  However, aesthetic changes must
- <emphasis>not</emphasis> be made in a non-maintainer upload.
- </para>
- <para>
- And please remember the Hippocratic Oath: Above all, do no harm.  It is better
- to leave a package with an open grave bug than applying a non-functional patch,
- or one that hides the bug instead of resolving it.
  </para>
  <section id="nmu-guidelines">
- <title>How to do a NMU</title>
+ <title>When and how to do an NMU</title>
- <para>
- NMUs which fix important, serious or higher severity bugs are encouraged and
- accepted.  You should endeavor to reach the current maintainer of the package;
- they might be just about to upload a fix for the problem, or have a better
- solution.
- </para>
- <para>
- NMUs should be made to assist a package's maintainer in resolving bugs.
- Maintainers should be thankful for that help, and NMUers should respect the
- decisions of maintainers, and try to personally help the maintainer by their
- work.
- </para>
  <para>
- A NMU should follow all conventions, written down in this section.  For an
+ Before doing an NMU, consider the following questions:
- upload to <literal>testing</literal> or <literal>unstable</literal>, this
- order of steps is recommended:
  </para>
  <itemizedlist>
  <listitem>
  <para>
- Make sure that the package's bugs that the NMU is meant to address are all
+ Does your NMU really fix bugs? Fixing cosmetic issues or changing the
- filed in the Debian Bug Tracking System (BTS).  If they are not, submit them
+ packaging style in NMUs is discouraged.
- immediately.
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
- Wait a few days for the response from the maintainer.  If you don't get any
+ Did you give enough time to the maintainer? When was the bug reported to the
- response, you may want to help them by sending the patch that fixes the bug.
+ BTS? Being busy for a week or two isn't unusual.  Is the bug so severe that it
- Don't forget to tag the bug with the patch keyword.
+ needs to be fixed right now, or can it wait a few more days?
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
- Wait a few more days.  If you still haven't got an answer from the maintainer,
+ How confident are you about your changes? Please remember the Hippocratic Oath:
- send them a mail announcing your intent to NMU the package.  Prepare an NMU as
+ "Above all, do no harm." It is better to leave a package with an open grave bug
- described in this section, and test it carefully on your machine (cf.  <xref
+ than applying a non-functional patch, or one that hides the bug instead of
- linkend="sanitycheck"/> ).  Double check that your patch doesn't have any
+ resolving it. If you are not 100% sure of what you did, it might be a good idea
- unexpected side effects.  Make sure your patch is as small and as
+ to seek advice from others. Remember that if you break something in your NMU,
- non-disruptive as it can be.
+ many people will be very unhappy about it.
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
- Upload your package to incoming in <filename>DELAYED/7-day</filename> (cf.
+ Have you clearly expressed your intention to NMU, at least in the BTS?
- <xref linkend="delayed-incoming"/> ), send the final patch to the maintainer
+ It is also a good idea to try to contact the
- via the BTS, and explain to them that they have 7 days to react if they want to
+ maintainer by other means (private email, IRC).
- cancel the NMU.
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
- Follow what happens, you're responsible for any bug that you introduced with
+ If the maintainer is usually active and responsive, have you tried to contact
- your NMU.  You should probably use <xref linkend="pkg-tracking-system"/> (PTS)
+ him? In general it should be considered preferable that a maintainer takes care
- to stay informed of the state of the package after your NMU.
+ 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.
  </para>
  </listitem>
  </itemizedlist>
  <para>
- At times, the release manager or an organized group of developers can announce
+ When doing an NMU, you must first make sure that your intention to NMU is
- a certain period of time in which the NMU rules are relaxed.  This usually
+ clear.  Then, you must send a patch with the differences between the
- involves shortening the period during which one is to wait before uploading the
+ current package and your proposed NMU to the BTS. The
- fixes, and shortening the DELAYED period.  It is important to notice that even
+ <literal>nmudiff</literal> script in the <literal>devscripts</literal> package
- in these so-called bug squashing party times, the NMU'er has to file bugs and
+ might be helpful.
- contact the developer first, and act later.  Please see <xref
+ </para>
- linkend="qa-bsp"/> for details.
+ <para>
- </para>
+ While preparing the patch, you should better be aware of any package-specific
- <para>
+ practices that the maintainer might be using. Taking them into account reduces
- For the <literal>testing</literal> distribution, the rules may be changed by
+ the burden of getting your changes integrated back in the normal package
- the release managers.  Please take additional care, and acknowledge that the
+ workflow and thus increases the possibilities that that will happen. A good
- usual way for a package to enter <literal>testing</literal> is through
+ place where to look for for possible package-specific practices is
- <literal>unstable</literal>.
+ <ulink url="&url-debian-policy;ch-source.html#s-readmesource"><literal>debian/README.source</literal></ulink>.
  </para>
  <para>
- For the stable distribution, please take extra care.  Of course, the release
+ Unless you have an excellent reason not to do so, you must then give some time
- managers may also change the rules here.  Please verify before you upload that
+ to the maintainer to react (for example, by uploading to the
- all your changes are OK for inclusion into the next stable release by the
+ <literal>DELAYED</literal> queue).  Here are some recommended values to use for delays:
- release manager.
  </para>
+ <itemizedlist>
+ <listitem>
  <para>
- When a security bug is detected, the security team may do an NMU, using their
+ Upload fixing only release-critical bugs older than 7 days: 2 days
- own rules.  Please refer to <xref linkend="bug-security"/> for more
- information.
  </para>
+ </listitem>
+ <listitem>
  <para>
- For the differences for Porters NMUs, please see <xref
+ Upload fixing only release-critical and important bugs: 5 days
- linkend="source-nmu-when-porter"/> .
  </para>
+ </listitem>
+ <listitem>
  <para>
- Of course, it is always possible to agree on special rules with a maintainer
+ Other NMUs: 10 days
- (like the maintainer asking please upload this fix directly for me, and no diff
- required).
  </para>
- </section>
+ </listitem>
+ </itemizedlist>
- <section id="nmu-version">
- <title>NMU version numbering</title>
  <para>
- Whenever you have made a change to a package, no matter how trivial, the
+ Those delays are only examples. In some cases, such as uploads fixing security
- version number needs to change.  This enables our packing system to function.
+ issues, or fixes for trivial bugs that blocking a transition, it is desirable
- </para>
+ that the fixed package reaches <literal>unstable</literal> sooner.
- <para>
- If you are doing a non-maintainer upload (NMU), you should add a new minor
- version number to the <replaceable>debian-revision</replaceable> part of the
- version number (the portion after the last hyphen).  This extra minor number
- will start at `1'.  For example, consider the package `foo', which is at
- version 1.1-3.  In the archive, the source package control file would be
- <filename>foo_1.1-3.dsc</filename>.  The upstream version is `1.1' and the
- Debian revision is `3'.  The next NMU would add a new minor number `.1' to the
- Debian revision; the new source control file would be
- <filename>foo_1.1-3.1.dsc</filename>.
  </para>
  <para>
- The Debian revision minor number is needed to avoid stealing one of the package
+ Sometimes, release managers decide to allow NMUs with shorter delays for a
- maintainer's version numbers, which might disrupt their work.  It also has the
+ subset of bugs (e.g release-critical bugs older than 7 days). Also, some
- benefit of making it visually clear that a package in the archive was not made
+ maintainers list themselves in the <ulink url="&url-low-threshold-nmu;">Low
- by the official maintainer.
+ Threshold NMU list</ulink>, 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.
  </para>
  <para>
- If there is no <replaceable>debian-revision</replaceable> component in the
+ After you upload an NMU, you are responsible for the possible problems that you
- version number then one should be created, starting at `0.1' (but in case of a
+ might have introduced. You must keep an eye on the package (subscribing to the
- debian native package still upload it as native package).  If it is absolutely
+ package on the PTS is a good way to achieve this).
- necessary for someone other than the usual maintainer to make a release based
- on a new upstream version then the person making the release should start with
- the <replaceable>debian-revision</replaceable> value `0.1'.  The usual
- maintainer of a package should start their
- <replaceable>debian-revision</replaceable> numbering at `1'.
  </para>
  <para>
- If you upload a package to <literal>testing</literal> or <literal>stable
+ This is not a license to perform NMUs thoughtlessly.  If you NMU when it is
- </literal>, sometimes, you need to fork the version number tree.  For this,
+ clear that the maintainers are active and would have acknowledged a patch in a
- version numbers like 1.1-3sarge0.1 could be used.
+ 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.
  </para>
  </section>
  <section id="nmu-changelog">
- <title>Source NMUs must have a new changelog entry</title>
+ <title>NMUs and debian/changelog</title>
- <para>
- Anyone who is doing a source NMU must create a changelog entry, describing
- which bugs are fixed by the NMU, and generally why the NMU was required and
- what it fixed.  The changelog entry will have the email address of the person
- who uploaded it in the log entry and the NMU version number in it.
- </para>
  <para>
- By convention, source NMU changelog entries start with the line
+ Just like any other (source) upload, NMUs must add an entry to
+ <literal>debian/changelog</literal>, telling what has changed with this
+ upload.  The first line of this entry must explicitely mention that this upload is an NMU, e.g.:
  </para>
  <screen>
-   * Non-maintainer upload
+   * Non-maintainer upload.
  </screen>
- </section>
- <section id="nmu-patch">
- <title>Source NMUs and the Bug Tracking System</title>
  <para>
- Maintainers other than the official package maintainer should make as few
+ The way to version NMUs differs for native and non-native packages.
- changes to the package as possible, and they should always send a patch as a
+ </para>
- unified context diff (<literal>diff -u</literal>) detailing their changes to
+ <para>
- the Bug Tracking System.
+ 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
+ <literal>+nmu<replaceable>X</replaceable></literal>, where
+ <replaceable>X</replaceable> is a counter starting at <literal>1</literal>.
+ If
+ the last upload was also an NMU, the counter should be increased.  For example,
+ if the current version is <literal>1.5</literal>, then an NMU would get
+ version <literal>1.5+nmu1</literal>.
+ </para>
+ <para>
+ If the package is a not a native package, you should add a minor version number
+ to the debian revision part of the version number (the portion after the last
+ hyphen). This extra number must start at 1.  For example,
+ if the current version is <literal>1.5-2</literal>, then an NMU would get
+ version <literal>1.5-2.1</literal>. If a new upstream version
+ is packaged in the NMU, the debian revision is set to <literal>0</literal>, for
+ example <literal>1.6-0.1</literal>.
+ </para>
+ <para>
+ In both cases, if the last upload was also an NMU, the counter should
+ be increased. For example, if the current version is
+ <literal>1.5+nmu3</literal> (a native package which has already been
+ NMUed), the NMU would get version <literal>1.5+nmu4</literal>.  .
+ </para>
+ <para>
+ 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.
  </para>
  <para>
- What if you are simply recompiling the package?  If you just need to recompile
+ If you upload a package to testing or stable, you sometimes need to "fork" the
- it for a single architecture, then you may do a binary-only NMU as described in
+ version number tree. This is the case for security uploads, for example.  For
- <xref linkend="binary-only-nmu"/> which doesn't require any patch to be sent.
+ this, a version of the form
- If you want the package to be recompiled for all architectures, then you do a
+ <literal>+deb<replaceable>XY</replaceable>u<replaceable>Z</replaceable></literal>
- source NMU as usual and you will have to send a patch.
+ should be used, where <replaceable>X</replaceable> and
+ <replaceable>Y</replaceable> are the major and minor release numbers, and
+ <replaceable>Z</replaceable> is a counter starting at <literal>1</literal>.
+ When the release number is not yet known (often the case for
+ <literal>testing</literal>, at the beginning of release cycles), the lowest
+ release number higher than the last stable release number must be used.  For
+ example, while Etch (Debian 4.0) is stable, a security NMU to stable for a
+ package at version <literal>1.5-3</literal> would have version
+ <literal>1.5-3+deb40u1</literal>, whereas a security NMU to Lenny would get
+ version <literal>1.5-3+deb50u1</literal>. After the release of Lenny, security
+ uploads to the <literal>testing</literal> distribution will be versioned
+ <literal>+deb51uZ</literal>, until it is known whether that release will be
+ Debian 5.1 or Debian 6.0 (if that becomes the case, uploads will be versioned
+ as <literal>+deb60uZ</literal>.
  </para>
+ </section>
+ <section id="nmu-delayed">
+ <title>Using the <literal>DELAYED/</literal> queue</title>
  <para>
- Bugs fixed by source NMUs used to be tagged fixed instead of closed, but since
+ Having to wait for a response after you request permission to NMU is
- version tracking is in place, such bugs are now also closed with the NMU
+ inefficient, because it costs the NMUer a context switch to come back to the
- version.
+ issue.
+ The <literal>DELAYED</literal> queue (see <xref linkend="delayed-incoming"/>)
+ 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
+ <literal>DELAYED/7</literal> 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.
  </para>
  <para>
- Also, after doing an NMU, you have to send the information to the existing bugs
+ The <literal>DELAYED</literal> queue should not be used to put additional
- that are fixed by your NMU, including the unified diff.  Historically, it was
+ pressure on the maintainer. In particular, it's important that you are
- custom to open a new bug and include a patch showing all the changes you have
+ available to cancel or delay the upload before the delay expires since the
- made.  The normal maintainer will either apply the patch or employ an alternate
+ maintainer cannot cancel the upload himself.
- method of fixing the problem.  Sometimes bugs are fixed independently upstream,
- which is another good reason to back out an NMU's patch.  If the maintainer
- decides not to apply the NMU's patch but to release a new version, the
- maintainer needs to ensure that the new upstream version really fixes each
- problem that was fixed in the non-maintainer release.
  </para>
  <para>
- In addition, the normal maintainer should <emphasis>always</emphasis> retain
+ If you make an NMU to <literal>DELAYED</literal> and the maintainer updates
- the entry in the changelog file documenting the non-maintainer upload -- and of
+ his package before the delay expires, your upload will be rejected because a
- course, also keep the changes.  If you revert some of the changes, please
+ newer version is already available in the archive.
- reopen the relevant bug reports.
+ Ideally, the maintainer will take care to include your proposed changes (or
+ at least a solution for the problems they address) in that upload.
  </para>
  </section>
- <section id="nmu-build">
+ <section id="nmu-maintainer">
- <title>Building source NMUs</title>
+ <title>NMUs from the maintainer's point of view</title>
  <para>
- Source NMU packages are built normally.  Pick a distribution using the same
+ When someone NMUs your package, this means they want to help you to keep it in
- rules as found in <xref linkend="distribution"/> , follow the other
+ good shape.  This gives users fixed packages faster.  You
- instructions in <xref linkend="upload"/> .
+ 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.
  </para>
  <para>
- Make sure you do <emphasis>not</emphasis> change the value of the maintainer in
+ To acknowledge an NMU, include its changes and changelog entry in your next
- the <filename>debian/control</filename> file.  Your name as given in the NMU
+ maintainer upload.  If you do not acknowledge the NMU by including the
- entry of the <filename>debian/changelog</filename> file will be used for
+ NMU changelog entry in your changelog, the bugs will remain closed in the
- signing the changes file.
+ BTS but will be listed as affecting your maintainer version of the package.
  </para>
  </section>
- <section id="ack-nmu">
+ <section id="nmu-binnmu">
- <title>Acknowledging an NMU</title>
+ <title>Source NMUs vs Binary-only NMUs (binNMUs)</title>
  <para>
- If one of your packages has been NMU'ed, you have to incorporate the changes in
+ The full name of an NMU is <emphasis>source NMU</emphasis>.  There is also
- your copy of the sources.  This is easy, you just have to apply the patch that
+ another type, namely the <emphasis>binary-only NMU</emphasis>, or
- has been sent to you.  Once this is done, you have to close the bugs that have
+ <emphasis>binNMU</emphasis>.  A binNMU is also a package upload by someone
- been tagged fixed by the NMU.  The easiest way is to use the
+ other than the package's maintainer.  However, it is a binary-only upload.
- <literal>-v</literal> option of <command>dpkg-buildpackage</command>, as this
- allows you to include just all changes since your last maintainer upload.
- Alternatively, you can close them manually by sending the required mails to the
- BTS or by adding the required <literal>closes: #nnnn</literal> in the changelog
- entry of your next upload.
  </para>
  <para>
- In any case, you should not be upset by the NMU.  An NMU is not a personal
+ When a library (or other dependency) is updated, the packages using it may need
- attack against the maintainer.  It is a proof that someone cares enough about
+ to be rebuilt.  Since no changes to the source are needed, the same source
- the package that they were willing to help you in your work, so you should be
+ package is used.
- thankful.  You may also want to ask them if they would be interested in helping
- you on a more frequent basis as co-maintainer or backup maintainer (see <xref
- linkend="collaborative-maint"/> ).
  </para>
- </section>
- <section id="nmu-vs-qa">
- <title>NMU vs QA uploads</title>
  <para>
- Unless you know the maintainer is still active, it is wise to check the package
+ BinNMUs are usually triggered on the buildds by wanna-build.
- to see if it has been orphaned.  The current list of orphaned packages which
+ An entry is added to debian/changelog,
- haven't had their maintainer set correctly is available at <ulink
+ explaining why the upload was needed and increasing the version number as
- url="&url-debian-qa-orphaned;"></ulink>.  If you perform an NMU on an
+ described in <xref linkend="binary-only-nmu"/>.
- improperly orphaned package, please set the maintainer to <literal>Debian QA Group
+ This entry should not be included in the next upload.
- &lt;packages@qa.debian.org&gt;</literal>.
  </para>
- </section>
- <section id="nmu-who">
- <title>Who can do an NMU</title>
  <para>
- Only official, registered Debian Developers can do binary or source NMUs.  A
+ Buildds upload packages for their architecture to the archive as binary-only
- Debian Developer is someone who has their key in the Debian key ring.
+ uploads.  Strictly speaking, these are binNMUs.  However, they are not normally
- Non-developers, however, are encouraged to download the source package and
+ called NMU, and they don't add an entry to debian/changelog.
- start hacking on it to fix problems; however, rather than doing an NMU, they
- should just submit worthwhile patches to the Bug Tracking System.  Maintainers
- almost always appreciate quality patches and bug reports.
  </para>
  </section>
- <section id="nmu-terms">
+ <section id="nmu-qa-upload">
- <title>Terminology</title>
+ <title>NMUs vs QA uploads</title>
  <para>
- There are two new terms used throughout this section: ``binary-only NMU'' and
+ NMUs are uploads of packages by somebody else than their assigned maintainer.
- ``source NMU''.  These terms are used with specific technical meaning
+ There is
- throughout this document.  Both binary-only and source NMUs are similar, since
+ another type of upload where the uploaded package is not yours: QA uploads. QA
- they involve an upload of a package by a developer who is not the official
+ uploads are uploads of orphaned packages.
- maintainer of that package.  That is why it's a
- <literal>non-maintainer</literal> upload.
  </para>
  <para>
- A source NMU is an upload of a package by a developer who is not the official
+ QA uploads are very much like normal maintainer uploads: they may fix anything,
- maintainer, for the purposes of fixing a bug in the package.  Source NMUs
+ even minor issues; the version numbering is normal, and there is no need to use
- always involves changes to the source (even if it is just a change to
+ a delayed upload.  The difference is that you are not listed as the Maintainer
- <filename>debian/changelog</filename>).  This can be either a change to the
+ or Uploader for the package.  Also, the changelog entry of a QA upload has a
- upstream source, or a change to the Debian bits of the source.  Note, however,
+ special first line:
- that source NMUs may also include architecture-dependent packages, as well as
- an updated Debian diff.
  </para>
+ <screen>
+  * QA upload.
+ </screen>
  <para>
- A binary-only NMU is a recompilation and upload of a binary package for a given
+ If you want to do an NMU, and it seems that the maintainer is not active, it is
- architecture.  As such, it is usually part of a porting effort.  A binary-only
+ wise to check if the package is orphaned
- NMU is a non-maintainer uploaded binary version of a package, with no source
+ (this information is displayed on the package's Package Tracking System page).
- changes required.  There are many cases where porters must fix problems in the
+ When doing the first QA upload to an
- source in order to get them to compile for their target architecture; that
+ orphaned package, the maintainer should be set to <literal>Debian QA Group
- would be considered a source NMU rather than a binary-only NMU.  As you can
+ &lt;packages@qa.debian.org&gt;</literal>.  Orphaned packages which did
- see, we don't distinguish in terminology between porter NMUs and non-porter
+ not yet have a QA upload still have their old maintainer set.  There is a list
- NMUs.
+ of them at <ulink url="&url-orphaned-not-qa;"/>.
  </para>
  <para>
- Both classes of NMUs, source and binary-only, can be lumped under the term
+ Instead of doing a QA upload, you can also consider adopting the package by
- ``NMU''.  However, this often leads to confusion, since most people think
+ making yourself the maintainer.  You don't need permission from anybody to
- ``source NMU'' when they think ``NMU''.  So it's best to be careful: always use
+ adopt an orphaned package, you can just set yourself as maintainer and upload
- ``binary NMU'' or ``binNMU'' for binary-only NMUs.
+ the new version (see <xref linkend="adopting"/>).
  </para>
  </section>
  </section>
-Line 2192 
 after they have undergone some degree of
+Line 2289 
 after they have undergone some degree of
  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 <literal>testing
- <literal>.  This way, <literal>testing</literal> should always be close to
+ </literal>.  This way, <literal>testing</literal> should always be close to
  being a release candidate.  Please see below for details.
  </para>
  </section>
-Line 2232 
 available in <literal>unstable</literal>
+Line 2329 
 available in <literal>unstable</literal>
  <listitem>
  <para>
  It must be available on all architectures on which it has previously been built
- in <literal>unstable</literal>.  <xref linkend="madison"/> may be of interest
+ in <literal>unstable</literal>.  <xref linkend="dak-ls"/> may be of interest
  to check that information;
  </para>
  </listitem>
-Line 2318 
 Consider this example:
+Line 2415 
 Consider this example:
  </informaltable>
  <para>
  The package is out of date on alpha in <literal>unstable</literal>, and will
- not go to <literal>testing. Removing the package would not help at all, the
+ not go to <literal>testing</literal>. Removing the package would not help at all, the
  package is still out of date on <literal>alpha</literal>, and will not
  propagate to testing.
  </para>

 Legend:



Removed from v.5219
 


changed lines


 
Added in v.7071
 Legend:



Removed from v.5219
 


changed lines


 
Added in v.7071
-Removed from v.5219
+Added in v.7071

	ViewVC Help
Powered by ViewVC 1.1.5