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

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

Parent Directory | Revision Log | View Patch Patch

-revision 5196 by he,
Sun Jun  1 14:28:18 2008 UTC
+revision 7314 by taffit-guest,
Thu May  6 01:04:08 2010 UTC
 Line 21 
 pages</ulink> for more information.
  </para>
  <para>
  Assuming no one else is already working on your prospective package, you must
- then submit a bug report (<xref linkend="submit-bug"/> ) against the
+ then submit a bug report (<xref linkend="submit-bug"/>) against the
  pseudo-package <systemitem role="package">wnpp</systemitem> 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.
  </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 separate 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 &email-ftpmaster;
+ a reply to the email you receive as a maintainer after your upload, or reply to
+ the rejection email in case you are already re-uploading.
  </para>
  <para>
- When closing security bugs include CVE numbers as well as the Closes: #nnnnn.
+ When closing security bugs include CVE numbers as well as the
+ <literal>Closes: #<replaceable>nnnnn</replaceable></literal>
  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
-Line 72 
 already is a volunteer, so efforts may b
+Line 83 
 already is a volunteer, so efforts may b
  <para>
  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 <literal>debian-devel-changes</literal>.
+ posted to &email-debian-devel-changes;.
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
- It is helpful to the people who live off unstable (and form our first line of
+ It is helpful to the people who live off <literal>unstable</literal> (and form
- testers).  We should encourage these people.
+ our first line of testers).  We should encourage these people.
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
-Line 111 
 for native packages.
+Line 122 
 for native packages.
  The <filename>debian/changelog</filename> file conforms to a certain structure,
  with a number of different fields.  One field of note, the
  <literal>distribution</literal>, is described in <xref
- linkend="distribution"/> .  More information about the structure of this file
+ linkend="distribution"/>.  More information about the structure of this file
  can be found in the Debian Policy section titled
  <filename>debian/changelog</filename>.
  </para>
  <para>
  Changelog entries can be used to automatically close Debian bugs when the
- package is installed into the archive.  See <xref linkend="upload-bugfix"/> .
+ package is installed into the archive.  See <xref linkend="upload-bugfix"/>.
  </para>
  <para>
  It is conventional that the changelog entry of a package that contains a new
-Line 129 
 upstream version of the software looks l
+Line 140 
 upstream version of the software looks l
  <para>
  There are tools to help you create entries and finalize the
  <filename>changelog</filename> for release — see <xref linkend="devscripts"/>
- and <xref linkend="dpkg-dev-el"/> .
+ and <xref linkend="dpkg-dev-el"/>.
  </para>
  <para>
- See also <xref linkend="bpp-debian-changelog"/> .
+ See also <xref linkend="bpp-debian-changelog"/>.
  </para>
  </section>
-Line 167 
 lintian to emit errors (they will start
+Line 178 
 lintian to emit errors (they will start
  </para>
  <para>
  For more information on <command>lintian</command>, see <xref
- linkend="lintian"/> .
+ linkend="lintian"/>.
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
- Optionally run <xref linkend="debdiff"/> to analyze changes from an older
+ Optionally run <command>debdiff</command> (see <xref linkend="debdiff"/>) to analyze changes from an older
  version, if one exists.
  </para>
  </listitem>
-Line 192 
 Remove the package, then reinstall it.
+Line 203 
 Remove the package, then reinstall it.
  Copy the source package in a different directory and try unpacking it and
  rebuilding it.  This tests if the package relies on existing files outside of
  it, or if it relies on permissions being preserved on the files shipped inside
- the .diff.gz file.
+ the <filename>.diff.gz</filename> file.
  </para>
  </listitem>
  </itemizedlist>
-Line 213 
 distinction between the original sources
+Line 224 
 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 254 
 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 268 
 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,lzma} 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 266 
 permissions in the patch.
+Line 281 
 permissions in the patch.
  Each upload needs to specify which distribution the package is intended for.
  The package build process extracts this information from the first line of the
  <filename>debian/changelog</filename> file and places it in the
- <literal>Distribution</literal> field of the <literal>.changes</literal> file.
+ <literal>Distribution</literal> field of the <filename>.changes</filename> file.
  </para>
  <para>
- There are several possible values for this field: `stable', `unstable',
+ There are several possible values for this field: <literal>stable</literal>,
- `testing-proposed-updates' and `experimental'.  Normally, packages are uploaded
+ <literal>unstable</literal>, <literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal> and
- into <literal>unstable</literal>.
+ <literal>experimental</literal>.  Normally, packages are uploaded into
+ <literal>unstable</literal>.
  </para>
  <para>
- Actually, there are two other possible distributions: `stable-security' and
+ Actually, there are two other possible distributions: <literal>stable-security</literal>
- `testing-security', but read <xref linkend="bug-security"/> for more
+ and <literal>testing-security</literal>, but read
- information on those.
+ <xref linkend="bug-security"/> for more information on those.
  </para>
  <para>
  It is not possible to upload a package into several distributions at the same
  time.
  </para>
  <section id="upload-stable">
- <title>Special case: uploads to the <literal>stable</literal> distribution</title>
+ <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
+ 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.
  From there, it will be included in <literal>stable</literal> with the next
  point release.
  </para>
  <para>
+ To ensure that your upload will be accepted, you should discuss the changes
+ with the stable release team before you upload. For that, send a mail to
+ the &email-debian-release; mailing list, including the patch you want to
+ apply to the package version currently in <literal>stable</literal>. Always
+ be verbose and detailed in your changelog entries for uploads to the
+ <literal>stable</literal> distribution.
+ </para>
+ <para>
  Extra care should be taken when uploading to <literal>stable</literal>.
- Basically, a package should only be uploaded to stable if one of the following
+ Basically, a package should only be uploaded to <literal>stable</literal> if
- happens:
+ one of the following happens:
  </para>
  <itemizedlist>
  <listitem>
-Line 320 
 security problems as well.  However, thi
+Line 345 
 security problems as well.  However, thi
  used for Debian security advisories are automatically copied to the appropriate
  <filename>proposed-updates</filename> archive when the advisory is released.
  See <xref linkend="bug-security"/> for detailed information on handling
- security problems.
+ security problems. If the security teams deems the problem to be too
+ benign to be fixed through a <literal>DSA</literal>, the stable release
+ managers are usually willing to include your fix nonetheless in a regular
+ upload to <literal>stable</literal>.
  </para>
  <para>
  Changing anything else in the package that isn't important is discouraged,
-Line 331 
 Packages uploaded to <literal>stable</li
+Line 359 
 Packages uploaded to <literal>stable</li
  running <literal>stable</literal>, so that their dependencies are limited to
  the libraries (and other packages) available in <literal>stable</literal>;
  for example, a package uploaded to <literal>stable</literal> that depends on
- a library package that only exists in unstable will be rejected.  Making
+ a library package that only exists in <literal>unstable</literal> will be
- changes to dependencies of other packages (by messing with
+ rejected.  Making changes to dependencies of other packages (by messing with
- <literal>Provides</literal> or shlibs files), possibly making those other
+ <literal>Provides</literal> or <filename>shlibs</filename> files), possibly
- packages uninstallable, is strongly discouraged.
+ making those other packages uninstallable, is strongly discouraged.
  </para>
  <para>
- The Release Team (which can be reached at
+ Uploads to the <literal>oldstable</literal> distributions are possible as
- &email-debian-release;) will regularly evaluate the uploads to
+ long as it hasn't been archived. The same rules as for <literal>stable</literal>
- <literal>stable-proposed-updates</literal> and decide if your package can be
+ apply.
- included in <literal>stable</literal>.  Please be clear (and verbose, if
- necessary) in your changelog entries for uploads to
- <literal>stable</literal>, because otherwise the package won't be considered
- for inclusion.
- </para>
- <para>
- It's best practice to speak with the stable release manager
- <emphasis>before</emphasis> uploading to
- <literal>stable</literal>/<literal>stable-proposed-updates</literal>, so
- that the uploaded package fits the needs of the next point release.
  </para>
  </section>
-Line 369 
 section</link> for details.
+Line 387 
 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 382 
 upload may be rejected because the archi
+Line 400 
 upload may be rejected because the archi
  changes file and see that not all files have been uploaded.
  </para>
  <para>
- You may also find the Debian packages <xref linkend="dupload"/> or <xref
+ You may also find the Debian packages <link linkend="dupload">dupload</link>
- linkend="dput"/> useful when uploading packages.  These handy programs help
+ or <link linkend="dput">dput</link> useful when uploading packages.These
- automate the process of uploading packages into Debian.
+ handy programs help 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
- the Debian package <xref linkend="dcut"/> .
+ <ulink url="ftp://&ftp-upload-host;&upload-queue;README"/> and
+ the Debian package <link linkend="dcut">dcut</link>.
  </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 424 
 linkend="upload-ftp-master"/> applies he
+Line 441 
 linkend="upload-ftp-master"/> applies he
  <title>Security uploads</title>
  <para>
  Do <emphasis role="strong">NOT</emphasis> upload a package to the security
- upload queue (oldstable-security, stable-security, etc.) without prior
+ upload queue (<literal>oldstable-security</literal>, <literal>stable-security</literal>,
- authorization from the security team.  If the package does not exactly meet the
+ etc.) without prior authorization from the security team.  If the
- team's requirements, it will cause many problems and delays in dealing with the
+ package does not exactly meet the team's requirements, it will cause many
- unwanted upload.  For details, please see section <xref
+ problems and delays in dealing with the unwanted upload.  For details, please
- linkend="bug-security"/> .
+ see <xref linkend="bug-security"/>.
  </para>
  </section>
  <section id="s5.6.5">
  <title>Other upload queues</title>
  <para>
- The scp queues on <literal>&ftp-master-host;</literal>, and security are mostly
+ There is an alternative upload queue in Europe at <ulink
- unusable due to the login restrictions on those hosts.
+ url="ftp://&ftp-eu-upload-host;&upload-queue;"/>. It operates in
- </para>
+ the same way as <literal>&ftp-upload-host;</literal>, but should be faster
- <para>
+ for European developers.
- The anonymous queues on ftp.uni-erlangen.de and ftp.uk.debian.org are currently
- down.  Work is underway to resurrect them.
- </para>
- <para>
- The queues on master.debian.org, samosa.debian.org, master.debian.or.jp, and
- ftp.chiark.greenend.org.uk are down permanently, and will not be resurrected.
- The queue in Japan will be replaced with a new queue on hp.debian.or.jp some
- day.
  </para>
  <para>
- For the time being, the anonymous ftp queue on auric.debian.org (the former
+ Packages can also be uploaded via ssh to
- ftp-master) works, but it is deprecated and will be removed at some point in
+ <literal>&ssh-upload-host;</literal>; files should be put
- the future.
+ <literal>/srv/upload.debian.org/UploadQueue</literal>. This queue does
+ not support <link linkend="delayed-incoming">delayed uploads</link>.
  </para>
  </section>
-Line 461 
 the future.
+Line 471 
 the future.
  The Debian archive maintainers are responsible for handling package uploads.
  For the most part, uploads are automatically handled on a daily basis by the
  archive maintenance tools, <command>katie</command>.  Specifically, updates to
- existing packages to the `unstable' distribution are handled automatically.  In
+ existing packages to the <literal>unstable</literal> distribution are handled
- other cases, notably new packages, placing the uploaded package into the
+ automatically.  In other cases, notably new packages, placing the uploaded
- distribution is handled manually.  When uploads are handled manually, the
+ package into the distribution is handled manually.  When uploads are handled
- change to the archive may take up to a month to occur.  Please be patient.
+ manually, the change to the archive may take up to a month to occur.  Please
+ be patient.
  </para>
  <para>
  In any case, you will receive an email notification indicating that the package
-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 522 
 url="&url-bts-devel;#maintincorrect"></u
+Line 536 
 url="&url-bts-devel;#maintincorrect"></u
  <para>
  Note that the <literal>Section</literal> field describes both the section as
  well as the subsection, which are described in <xref
- linkend="archive-sections"/> .  If the section is main, it should be omitted.
+ linkend="archive-sections"/>.  If the section is main, it should be omitted.
  The list of allowable subsections can be found in <ulink
  url="&url-debian-policy;ch-archive.html#s-subsections"></ulink>.
  </para>
-Line 533 
 url="&url-debian-policy;ch-archive.html#
+Line 547 
 url="&url-debian-policy;ch-archive.html#
  <para>
  Every developer has to be able to work with the Debian <ulink
  url="&url-bts;">bug tracking system</ulink>.  This includes
- knowing how to file bug reports properly (see <xref linkend="submit-bug"/> ),
+ knowing how to file bug reports properly (see <xref linkend="submit-bug"/>),
  how to update them and reorder them, and how to process and close them.
  </para>
  <para>
-Line 586 
 address.
+Line 600 
 address.
  <para>
  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.,
- <email>123@&bugs-host;</email>).  If you're writing a new mail and you
+ <email><replaceable>123</replaceable>@&bugs-host;</email>).  If you're writing a new mail and you
  don't remember the submitter email address, you can use the
- <email>123-submitter@&bugs-host;</email> email to contact the submitter
+ <email><replaceable>123</replaceable>-submitter@&bugs-host;</email> email to contact the submitter
  <emphasis>and</emphasis> to record your mail within the bug log (that means you
- don't need to send a copy of the mail to <email>123@&bugs-host;</email>).
+ don't need to send a copy of the mail to <email><replaceable>123</replaceable>@&bugs-host;</email>).
  </para>
  <para>
  If you get a bug which mentions FTBFS, this means Fails to build from source.
-Line 599 
 Porters frequently use this acronym.
+Line 613 
 Porters frequently use this acronym.
  <para>
  Once you've dealt with a bug report (e.g.  fixed it), mark it as
  <literal>done</literal> (close it) by sending an explanation message to
- <email>123-done@&bugs-host;</email>.  If you're fixing a bug by changing
+ <email><replaceable>123</replaceable>-done@&bugs-host;</email>.  If you're fixing a bug by changing
  and uploading the package, you can automate bug closing as described in <xref
- linkend="upload-bugfix"/> .
+ linkend="upload-bugfix"/>.
  </para>
  <para>
  You should <emphasis>never</emphasis> close bugs via the bug server
-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><replaceable>packagename</replaceable>@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 712 
 bug as <literal>patch</literal>.
+Line 740 
 bug as <literal>patch</literal>.
  <listitem>
  <para>
  If you have fixed a bug in your local copy, or if a fix has been committed to
- the CVS repository, you may tag the bug as <literal>pending</literal> to let
+ the VCS repository, you may tag the bug as <literal>pending</literal> to let
  people know that the bug is corrected and that it will be closed with the next
  upload (add the <literal>closes:</literal> in the
  <filename>changelog</filename>).  This is particularly useful if you are
-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 764 
 closing changelogs are identified:
+Line 792 
 closing changelogs are identified:
  We prefer the <literal>closes: #<replaceable>XXX</replaceable></literal>
  syntax, as it is the most concise entry and the easiest to integrate with the
  text of the <filename>changelog</filename>.  Unless specified different by the
- <replaceable>-v</replaceable>-switch to <command>dpkg-buildpackage</command>,
+ <literal>-v</literal>-switch to <command>dpkg-buildpackage</command>,
  only the bugs closed in the most recent changelog entry are closed (basically,
  exactly the bugs mentioned in the changelog-part in the
  <filename>.changes</filename> file are closed).
  </para>
  <para>
- Historically, uploads identified as <link linkend="nmu">Non-maintainer
+ Historically, uploads identified as <link linkend="nmu">non-maintainer
  upload (NMU)</link> were tagged <literal>fixed</literal> instead of being
  closed, but that practice was ceased with the advent of version-tracking.  The
  same applied to the tag <literal>fixed-in-experimental</literal>.
-Line 782 
 bugs, send a <literal>reopen <replaceabl
+Line 810 
 bugs, send a <literal>reopen <replaceabl
  to the bug tracking system's control address,
  &email-bts-control;.  To close any remaining bugs that were
  fixed by your upload, email the <filename>.changes</filename> file to
- <email>XXX-done@&bugs-host;</email>, where <replaceable>XXX</replaceable>
+ <email><replaceable>XXX</replaceable>-done@&bugs-host;</email>, where <replaceable>XXX</replaceable>
- is the bug number, and put Version: YYY and an empty line as the first two
+ is the bug number, and put Version: <replaceable>YYY</replaceable> and an empty line as the first two
  lines of the body of the email, where <replaceable>YYY</replaceable> is the
  first version where the bug has been fixed.
  </para>
-Line 791 
 first version where the bug has been fix
+Line 819 
 first version where the bug has been fix
  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
- <email>XXX-done@&bugs-host;</email>.  Do <emphasis
+ <email><replaceable>XXX</replaceable>-done@&bugs-host;</email>.  Do <emphasis
  role="strong">not</emphasis> 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.
  </para>
  <para>
  For general information on how to write your changelog entries, see <xref
- linkend="bpp-debian-changelog"/> .
+ linkend="bpp-debian-changelog"/>.
  </para>
  </section>
-Line 808 
 Due to their sensitive nature, security-
+Line 836 
 Due to their sensitive nature, security-
  The Debian Security Team exists to coordinate this activity, keeping track of
  outstanding security problems, helping maintainers with security problems or
  fixing them themselves, sending security advisories, and maintaining
- security.debian.org.
+ <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 stable; the security
+ role="strong">DO NOT UPLOAD</emphasis> any packages for <literal>stable</literal>
- team will do that.  Useful information includes, for example:
+ without contacting the team.  Useful information includes, for example:
  </para>
  <itemizedlist>
  <listitem>
  <para>
  Which versions of the package are known to be affected by the bug.  Check each
- version that is present in a supported Debian release, as well as testing and
+ version that is present in a supported Debian release, as well as
- unstable.
+ <literal>testing</literal> and <literal>unstable</literal>.
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
-Line 849 
 testing, etc.)
+Line 875 
 testing, etc.)
  <listitem>
  <para>
  Any information needed for the advisory (see <xref
- linkend="bug-security-advisories"/> )
+ 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 911 
 release of Debian.  When sending confide
+Line 960 
 release of Debian.  When sending confide
  be sure to mention this fact.
  </para>
  <para>
- Please note that if secrecy is needed you may not upload a fix to unstable (or
+ Please note that if secrecy is needed you may not upload a fix to
+ <literal>unstable</literal> (or
  anywhere else, such as a public CVS repository).  It is not sufficient to
  obfuscate the details of the change, as the code itself is public, and can (and
  will) be examined by the general public.
-Line 921 
 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">
  <title>Security Advisories</title>
  <para>
  Security advisories are only issued for the current, released stable
- distribution, and <emphasis>not</emphasis> for testing or unstable.  When
+ distribution, and <emphasis>not</emphasis> for <literal>testing</literal>
- released, advisories are sent to the
+ or <literal>unstable</literal>.  When released, advisories are sent to the
  &email-debian-security-announce; mailing list and posted on
  <ulink url="&url-debian-security-advisories;">the security web
  page</ulink>.  Security advisories are written and posted by the security team.
-Line 1049 
 the previous version repeatedly (<comman
+Line 1103 
 the previous version repeatedly (<comman
  <systemitem role="package">patchutils</systemitem> package and
  <command>debdiff</command> from <systemitem
  role="package">devscripts</systemitem> are useful tools for this, see <xref
- linkend="debdiff"/> ).
+ linkend="debdiff"/>).
  </para>
  <para>
  Be sure to verify the following items:
-Line 1057 
 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>
- For stable this is <literal>stable-security</literal> and for testing this is
+ in your <filename>debian/changelog</filename>.
- <literal>testing-security</literal>, and for the previous stable release, this
+ For <literal>stable</literal> this is <literal>stable-security</literal> and
- is <literal>oldstable-security</literal>.  Do not target
+ 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>!
  </para>
  </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 unstable, so that it is clear
+ Always include an external reference, preferably a <emphasis role="strong">CVE
- that the same bug was fixed, as this is very helpful when verifying that the
+ identifier</emphasis>, so that it can be cross-referenced. However, if a CVE
- bug is fixed in the next stable release.  If a CVE identifier has not yet been
+ identifier has not yet been assigned, do not wait for it but continue the
- assigned, the security team will request one so that it can be included in the
+ process. The identifier can be cross-referenced later.
- 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 unstable first.
+ <literal>1:2.4.3-4+lenny1</literal>, of course increasing 1 for any subsequent
+ uploads.
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
- Do not make source-only uploads if your package has any binary-all packages (do
+ Unless the upstream source has been uploaded to <literal>security.debian.org
- not use the <literal>-S</literal> option to
+ </literal> before (by a previous security update), build the upload <emphasis
- <command>dpkg-buildpackage</command>).  The <command>buildd</command>
+ role="strong">with full upstream source</emphasis> (<literal>dpkg-buildpackage
- infrastructure will not build those.  This point applies to normal package
+ -sa</literal>).  If there has been a previous upload to
- uploads as well.
+ <literal>security.debian.org</literal> with the same upstream version, you may
+ upload without upstream source (<literal>dpkg-buildpackage -sd</literal>).
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
- Unless the upstream source has been uploaded to security.debian.org before (by
+ Be sure to use the <emphasis role="strong">exact same
- a previous security update), build the upload with full upstream source
+ <filename>*.orig.tar.{gz,bz2,lzma}</filename></emphasis> as used in the
- (<literal>dpkg-buildpackage -sa</literal>).  If there has been a previous
- upload to security.debian.org with the same upstream version, you may 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
  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 1135 
 linkend="debootstrap"/> ).
+Line 1183 
 linkend="debootstrap"/> ).
  <title>Uploading the fixed package</title>
  <para>
  Do <emphasis role="strong">NOT</emphasis> upload a package to the security
- upload queue (oldstable-security, stable-security, etc.) without prior
+ upload queue (<literal>oldstable-security</literal>, <literal>stable-security</literal>,
- authorization from the security team.  If the package does not exactly meet the
+ etc.) without prior authorization from the security team.  If the
- team's requirements, it will cause many problems and delays in dealing with the
+ package does not exactly meet the team's requirements, it will cause many
- unwanted upload.
+ problems and delays in dealing with the unwanted upload.
  </para>
  <para>
- Do <emphasis role="strong">NOT</emphasis> upload your fix to proposed-updates
+ Do <emphasis role="strong">NOT</emphasis> upload your fix to
- without coordinating with the security team.  Packages from security.debian.org
+ <literal>proposed-updates</literal> without coordinating with the security team.
- will be copied into the proposed-updates directory automatically.  If a package
+ Packages from <literal>security.debian.org</literal> will be copied into
+ the <literal>proposed-updates</literal> 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
-Line 1153 
 instead.
+Line 1202 
 instead.
  Once you have created and tested the new package and it has been approved by
  the security team, it needs to be uploaded so that it can be installed in the
  archives.  For security uploads, the place to upload to is
- <literal>ftp://security-master.debian.org/pub/SecurityUploadQueue/</literal> .
+ <literal>ftp://security-master.debian.org/pub/SecurityUploadQueue/</literal>.
  </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 1167 
 problems that cannot be disclosed yet.
+Line 1216 
 problems that cannot be disclosed yet.
  </para>
  <para>
  If a member of the security team accepts a package, it will be installed on
- security.debian.org as well as proposed for the proper
+ <literal>security.debian.org</literal> as well as proposed for the proper
  <replaceable>distribution</replaceable><literal>-proposed-updates</literal>
  on <literal>&ftp-master-host;</literal>.
  </para>
-Line 1199 
 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,lzma}</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 1210 
 If, on the other hand, you need to chang
+Line 1259 
 If, on the other hand, you need to chang
  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 <xref linkend="override-file"/> .
+ described in <xref linkend="override-file"/>.
  </para>
  </section>
-Line 1220 
 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</replaceable>
- can only have packages removed from <literal>unstable</literal> and
+ <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 1247 
 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 1262 
 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 1271 
 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 1292 
 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 1309 
 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 1359 
 information and procedures.
+Line 1448 
 information and procedures.
  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 <xref linkend="mia-qa"/> .
+ maintainer has gone AWOL (absent without leave), see <xref linkend="mia-qa"/>.
  </para>
  <para>
  Generally, you may not take over the package without the assent of the current
-Line 1397 
 you are not a porter, you should read mo
+Line 1486 
 you are not a porter, you should read mo
  Porting is the act of building Debian packages for architectures that are
  different from the original architecture of the package maintainer's binary
  package.  It is a unique and essential activity.  In fact, porters do most of
- the actual compiling of Debian packages.  For instance, for a single
+ the actual compiling of Debian packages.  For instance, when a maintainer
- <literal>i386</literal> binary package, there must be a recompile for each
+ uploads a (portable) source packages with binaries for the <literal>i386
- architecture, which amounts to &number-of-arches; more builds.
+ </literal> architecture, it will be built for each of the other architectures,
+ amounting to &number-of-arches; more builds.
  </para>
  <section id="kind-to-porters">
  <title>Being kind to porters</title>
-Line 1430 
 Make sure that your <literal>Build-Depen
+Line 1520 
 Make sure that your <literal>Build-Depen
  <literal>Build-Depends-Indep</literal> settings in
  <filename>debian/control</filename> are set properly.  The best way to validate
  this is to use the <systemitem role="package">debootstrap</systemitem> package
- to create an unstable chroot environment (see <xref linkend="debootstrap"/> ).
+ to create an <literal>unstable</literal> chroot environment (see <xref
+ linkend="debootstrap"/>).
  Within that chrooted environment, install the <systemitem
  role="package">build-essential</systemitem> package and any package
  dependencies mentioned in <literal>Build-Depends</literal> and/or
  <literal>Build-Depends-Indep</literal>.  Finally, try building your package
  within that chrooted environment.  These steps can be automated by the use of
  the <command>pbuilder</command> program which is provided by the package of the
- same name (see <xref linkend="pbuilder"/> ).
+ same name (see <xref linkend="pbuilder"/>).
  </para>
  <para>
  If you can't set up a proper chroot, <command>dpkg-depcheck</command> may be of
- assistance (see <xref linkend="dpkg-depcheck"/> ).
+ assistance (see <xref linkend="dpkg-depcheck"/>).
  </para>
  <para>
  See the <ulink url="&url-debian-policy;">Debian Policy
-Line 1450 
 Manual</ulink> for instructions on setti
+Line 1541 
 Manual</ulink> for instructions on setti
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
- Don't set architecture to a value other than ``all'' or ``any'' unless you
+ Don't set architecture to a value other than <literal>all</literal> or
- really mean it.  In too many cases, maintainers don't follow the instructions
+ <literal>any</literal> unless you really mean it.  In too many cases,
- in the <ulink url="&url-debian-policy;">Debian Policy
+ maintainers don't follow the instructions in the <ulink
- Manual</ulink>.  Setting your architecture to ``i386'' is usually incorrect.
+ url="&url-debian-policy;">Debian Policy Manual</ulink>.  Setting your
+ architecture to only one architecture (such as <literal>i386</literal>
+ or <literal>amd64</literal>) is usually incorrect.
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
-Line 1468 
 scratch with <command>dpkg-buildpackage<
+Line 1561 
 scratch with <command>dpkg-buildpackage<
  <para>
  Make sure you don't ship your source package with the
  <filename>debian/files</filename> or <filename>debian/substvars</filename>
- files.  They should be removed by the `clean' target of
+ files.  They should be removed by the <literal>clean</literal> target of
  <filename>debian/rules</filename>.
  </para>
  </listitem>
-Line 1484 
 even if it's the same architecture.
+Line 1577 
 even if it's the same architecture.
  <listitem>
  <para>
  Don't depend on the package you're building being installed already (a sub-case
- of the above issue).
+ of the above issue). There are, of course, exceptions to this rule, but be
+ aware that any case like this needs manual bootstrapping and cannot be done
+ by automated package builders.
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
-Line 1497 
 standardize on different compilers.
+Line 1592 
 standardize on different compilers.
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
- Make sure your debian/rules contains separate ``binary-arch'' and
+ Make sure your debian/rules contains separate <literal>binary-arch</literal>
- ``binary-indep'' targets, as the Debian Policy Manual requires.  Make sure that
+ and <literal>binary-indep</literal> targets, as the Debian Policy Manual
- both targets work independently, that is, that you can call the target without
+ requires.  Make sure that both targets work independently, that is, that you
- having called the other before.  To test this, try to run
+ can call the target without having called the other before.  To test this,
- <literal>dpkg-buildpackage -B</literal>.
+ try to run <command>dpkg-buildpackage -B</command>.
  </para>
  </listitem>
  </orderedlist>
-Line 1528 
 The way to invoke <command>dpkg-buildpac
+Line 1623 
 The way to invoke <command>dpkg-buildpac
  -m<replaceable>porter-email</replaceable></literal>.  Of course, set
  <replaceable>porter-email</replaceable> to your email address.  This will do a
  binary-only build of only the architecture-dependent portions of the package,
- using the `binary-arch' target in <filename>debian/rules</filename>.
+ using the <literal>binary-arch</literal> target in <filename>debian/rules
+ </filename>.
  </para>
  <para>
  If you are working on a Debian machine for your porting efforts and you need to
-Line 1542 
 it signed conveniently, or use the remot
+Line 1638 
 it signed conveniently, or use the remot
  <para>
  Sometimes the initial porter upload is problematic because the environment in
  which the package was built was not good enough (outdated or obsolete library,
- bad compiler, ...).  Then you may just need to recompile it in an updated
+ bad compiler, etc.).  Then you may just need to recompile it in an updated
  environment.  However, you have to bump the version number in this case, so
  that the old bad package can be replaced in the Debian archive
- (<command>katie</command> refuses to install new packages if they don't have a
+ (<command>dak</command> refuses to install new packages if they don't have a
  version number greater than the currently available one).
  </para>
  <para>
  You have to make sure that your binary-only NMU doesn't render the package
  uninstallable.  This could happen when a source package generates
- arch-dependent and arch-independent packages that depend on each other via
+ arch-dependent and arch-independent packages that have inter-dependencies
- $(Source-Version).
+ generated using dpkg's substitution variable <literal>$(Source-Version)
+ </literal>.
  </para>
  <para>
  Despite the required modification of the changelog, these are called
-Line 1568 
 source code).
+Line 1665 
 source code).
  </para>
  <para>
  The ``magic'' for a recompilation-only NMU is triggered by using a suffix
- appended to the package version number, following the form b&lt;number&gt;.
+ appended to the package version number, following the form <literal>
+ b<replaceable>number</replaceable></literal>.
  For instance, if the latest version you are recompiling against was version
- ``2.9-3'', your NMU should carry a version of ``2.9-3+b1''.  If the latest
+ <literal>2.9-3</literal>, your binary-only NMU should carry a version of
- version was ``3.4+b1'' (i.e, a native package with a previous recompilation
+ <literal>2.9-3+b1</literal>.  If the latest version was <literal>3.4+b1
- NMU), your NMU should have a version number of ``3.4+b2''.  <footnote><para> In
+ </literal> (i.e, a native package with a previous recompilation NMU), your
- the past, such NMUs used the third-level number on the Debian part of the
+ binary-only NMU should have a version number of <literal>3.4+b2</literal>.
- revision to denote their recompilation-only status; however, this syntax was
+ <footnote><para> In the past, such NMUs used the third-level number on the
- ambiguous with native packages and did not allow proper ordering of
+ Debian part of the revision to denote their recompilation-only status;
- recompile-only NMUs, source NMUs, and security NMUs on the same package, and
+ however, this syntax was ambiguous with native packages and did not allow
- has therefore been abandoned in favor of this new syntax.  </para> </footnote>
+ 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.
+ </para> </footnote>
  </para>
  <para>
  Similar to initial porter uploads, the correct way of invoking
-Line 1598 
 the architecture is a candidate for incl
+Line 1698 
 the architecture is a candidate for incl
  release managers decide and announce which architectures are candidates.
  </para>
  <para>
- If you are a porter doing an NMU for `unstable', the above guidelines for
+ If you are a porter doing an NMU for <literal>unstable</literal>, the above
- porting should be followed, with two variations.  Firstly, the acceptable
+ guidelines for porting should be followed, with two variations.  Firstly, the
- waiting period — the time between when the bug is submitted to the BTS and
+ acceptable waiting period — the time between when the bug is submitted to
- when it is OK to do an NMU — is seven days for porters working on the
+ the BTS and when it is OK to do an NMU — is seven days for porters working
- unstable distribution.  This period can be shortened if the problem is critical
+ on the <literal>unstable</literal> distribution.  This period can be shortened
- and imposes hardship on the porting effort, at the discretion of the porter
+ if the problem is critical and imposes hardship on the porting effort, at the
- group.  (Remember, none of this is Policy, just mutually agreed upon
+ discretion of the porter group.  (Remember, none of this is Policy, just
- guidelines.) For uploads to stable or testing, please coordinate with the
+ mutually agreed upon guidelines.) For uploads to <literal>stable</literal> or
- appropriate release team first.
+ <literal>testing </literal>, please coordinate with the appropriate release
+ team first.
  </para>
  <para>
  Secondly, porters doing source NMUs should make sure that the bug they submit
- to the BTS should be of severity `serious' or greater.  This ensures that a
+ to the BTS should be of severity <literal>serious</literal> or greater.  This
- single source package can be used to compile every supported Debian
+ ensures that a single source package can be used to compile every supported
- architecture by release time.  It is very important that we have one version of
+ Debian architecture by release time.  It is very important that we have one
- the binary and source package for all architecture in order to comply with many
+ version of the binary and source package for all architectures in order to
- licenses.
+ comply with many licenses.
  </para>
  <para>
  Porters should try to avoid patches which simply kludge around bugs in the
-Line 1659 
 with the porters.
+Line 1760 
 with the porters.
  <title>Porter tools</title>
  <para>
  Descriptions of several porting tools can be found in <xref
- linkend="tools-porting"/> .
+ linkend="tools-porting"/>.
  </para>
  </section>
- <section id="buildd">
+ <section id="wanna-build">
- <title><systemitem role="package">buildd</systemitem></title>
+ <title><systemitem role="package">wanna-build</systemitem></title>
  <para>
- The <systemitem role="package">buildd</systemitem> system is used as a
+ The <systemitem role="package">wanna-build</systemitem> system is used as a
  distributed, client-server build distribution system.  It is usually used in
- conjunction with <literal>build daemons</literal>, which are ``slave'' hosts
+ conjunction with build daemons running the <systemitem role="package">buildd
- which simply check out and attempt to auto-build packages which need to be
+ </systemitem> program. <literal>Build daemons</literal> are ``slave'' hosts
- ported.  There is also an email interface to the system, which allows porters
+ which contact the central <systemitem role="package"> wanna-build</systemitem>
- to ``check out'' a source package (usually one which cannot yet be auto-built)
+ system to receive a list of packages that need to be built.
- and work on it.
+ </para>
- </para>
+ <para>
- <para>
+ <systemitem role="package">wanna-build</systemitem> is not yet available as a
- <systemitem role="package">buildd</systemitem> is not yet available as a
+ package; however, all Debian porting efforts are using it for automated
- package; however, most porting efforts are either using it currently or
+ package building.  The tool used to do the actual package builds, <systemitem
- planning to use it in the near future.  The actual automated builder is
+ role="package">sbuild</systemitem> is available as a package, see its
- packaged as <systemitem role="package">sbuild</systemitem>, see its description
+ description in <xref linkend="sbuild"/>.  Please note that the packaged
- in <xref linkend="sbuild"/> .  The complete <systemitem
+ version is not the same as the one used on build daemons, but it is close
- role="package">buildd</systemitem> system also collects a number of as yet
+ enough to reproduce problems.
- unpackaged components which are currently very useful and in use continually,
+ </para>
- such as <command>andrea</command> and <command>wanna-build</command>.
+ <para>
- </para>
+ Most of the data produced by <systemitem role="package">wanna-build
- <para>
+ </systemitem> which is generally useful to porters is available on the
- Some of the data produced by <systemitem role="package">buildd</systemitem>
+ web at <ulink url="&url-buildd;"></ulink>.  This data includes nightly
- which is generally useful to porters is available on the web at <ulink
+ updated statistics, queueing information and logs for build attempts.
- url="&url-buildd;"></ulink>.  This data includes nightly updated
- information from <command>andrea</command> (source dependencies) and
- <systemitem role="package">quinn-diff</systemitem> (packages needing
- recompilation).
  </para>
  <para>
  We are quite proud of this system, since it has so many possible uses.
-Line 1700 
 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,
- $arch@buildd.debian.org.
+ 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 1713 
 $arch@buildd.debian.org.
+Line 1818 
 $arch@buildd.debian.org.
  Some packages still have issues with building and/or working on some of the
  architectures supported by Debian, and cannot be ported at all, or not within a
  reasonable amount of time.  An example is a package that is SVGA-specific (only
- i386), or uses other hardware-specific features not supported on all
+ available for <literal>i386</literal> and <literal>amd64</literal>), or uses
- architectures.
+ other hardware-specific features not supported on all architectures.
  </para>
  <para>
  In order to prevent broken packages from being uploaded to the archive, and
-Line 1732 
 allow the package to build as soon as th
+Line 1837 
 allow the package to build as soon as th
  </para>
  <para>
  Additionally, if you believe the list of supported architectures is pretty
- constant, you should change 'any' to a list of supported architectures in
+ constant, you should change <literal>any</literal> to a list of supported
- debian/control.  This way, the build will fail also, and indicate this to a
+ architectures in <filename>debian/control</filename>.  This way, the build will
- human reader without actually trying.
+ fail also, and indicate this to a human reader without actually trying.
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
-Line 1742 
 human reader without actually trying.
+Line 1847 
 human reader without actually trying.
  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 1764 
 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="buildd"/> 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 testing or unstable, 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 testing distribution, the rules may be changed by the release managers.
+ the burden of getting your changes integrated back in the normal package
- Please take additional care, and acknowledge that the usual way for a package
+ workflow and thus increases the possibilities that that will happen. A good
- to enter testing is through unstable.
+ place where to look for for possible package-specific practices is
- </para>
+ <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
+ <para>
- managers may also change the rules here.  Please verify before you upload that
+ Unless you have an excellent reason not to do so, you must then give some time
- all your changes are OK for inclusion into the next stable release by the
+ to the maintainer to react (for example, by uploading to the
- release manager.
+ <literal>DELAYED</literal> queue).  Here are some recommended values to use for delays:
  </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
- version number needs to change.  This enables our packing system to function.
- </para>
  <para>
- If you are doing a non-maintainer upload (NMU), you should add a new minor
+ Those delays are only examples. In some cases, such as uploads fixing security
- version number to the <replaceable>debian-revision</replaceable> part of the
+ issues, or fixes for trivial bugs that blocking a transition, it is desirable
- version number (the portion after the last hyphen).  This extra minor number
+ that the fixed package reaches <literal>unstable</literal> sooner.
- 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 testing or stable, sometimes, you need to fork the
+ This is not a license to perform NMUs thoughtlessly.  If you NMU when it is
- version number tree.  For this, version numbers like 1.1-3sarge0.1 could be
+ clear that the maintainers are active and would have acknowledged a patch in a
- 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
- unified context diff (<literal>diff -u</literal>) detailing their changes to
- the Bug Tracking System.
  </para>
  <para>
- What if you are simply recompiling the package?  If you just need to recompile
+ If the package is a native package (without a debian revision in the version number),
- it for a single architecture, then you may do a binary-only NMU as described in
+ the version must be the version of the last maintainer upload, plus
- <xref linkend="binary-only-nmu"/> which doesn't require any patch to be sent.
+ <literal>+nmu<replaceable>X</replaceable></literal>, where
- If you want the package to be recompiled for all architectures, then you do a
+ <replaceable>X</replaceable> is a counter starting at <literal>1</literal>.
- source NMU as usual and you will have to send a patch.
+ 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>
- Bugs fixed by source NMUs used to be tagged fixed instead of closed, but since
+ If you upload a package to testing or stable, you sometimes need to "fork" the
- version tracking is in place, such bugs are now also closed with the NMU
+ version number tree. This is the case for security uploads, for example.  For
- version.
+ this, a version of the form
+ <literal>+deb<replaceable>XY</replaceable>u<replaceable>Z</replaceable></literal>
+ 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>
- Also, after doing an NMU, you have to send the information to the existing bugs
+ Having to wait for a response after you request permission to NMU is
- that are fixed by your NMU, including the unified diff.  Historically, it was
+ inefficient, because it costs the NMUer a context switch to come back to the
- custom to open a new bug and include a patch showing all the changes you have
+ issue.
- made.  The normal maintainer will either apply the patch or employ an alternate
+ The <literal>DELAYED</literal> queue (see <xref linkend="delayed-incoming"/>)
- method of fixing the problem.  Sometimes bugs are fixed independently upstream,
+ allows the developer doing the NMU to perform all the necessary tasks at the
- which is another good reason to back out an NMU's patch.  If the maintainer
+ same time. For instance, instead of telling the maintainer that you will
- decides not to apply the NMU's patch but to release a new version, the
+ upload the updated
- maintainer needs to ensure that the new upstream version really fixes each
+ package in 7 days, you should upload the package to
- problem that was fixed in the non-maintainer release.
+ <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>
- In addition, the normal maintainer should <emphasis>always</emphasis> retain
+ The <literal>DELAYED</literal> queue should not be used to put additional
- the entry in the changelog file documenting the non-maintainer upload -- and of
+ pressure on the maintainer. In particular, it's important that you are
- course, also keep the changes.  If you revert some of the changes, please
+ available to cancel or delay the upload before the delay expires since the
- reopen the relevant bug reports.
+ maintainer cannot cancel the upload himself.
  </para>
+ <para>
+ If you make an NMU to <literal>DELAYED</literal> 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.
+ </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 id="nmu-team-upload">
+ <title>NMUs vs team uploads</title>
+ <para>
+ Sometimes you are fixing and/or updating a package because you are member of a
+ packaging team (which uses a mailing list as Maintainer or Uploader, see <xref
+ linkend="collaborative-maint"/>) but you don't want to add yourself to Uploaders
+ because you do not plan to contribute regularly to this specific package. If it
+ conforms with your team's policy, you can perform a normal upload without
+ being listed directly as Maintainer or Uploader. In that case, you should
+ start your changelog entry with the following line: <code> * Team upload.</code>.
+ </para>
  </section>
  </section>
-Line 2113 
 easy:
+Line 2239 
 easy:
  Setup the co-maintainer with access to the sources you build the package from.
  Generally this implies you are using a network-capable version control system,
  such as <command>CVS</command> or <command>Subversion</command>.  Alioth (see
- <xref linkend="alioth"/> ) provides such tools, amongst others.
+ <xref linkend="alioth"/>) provides such tools, amongst others.
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
-Line 2128 
 Uploaders: John Buzz &lt;jbuzz@debian.or
+Line 2254 
 Uploaders: John Buzz &lt;jbuzz@debian.or
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
- Using the PTS (<xref linkend="pkg-tracking-system"/> ), the co-maintainers
+ Using the PTS (<xref linkend="pkg-tracking-system"/>), the co-maintainers
  should subscribe themselves to the appropriate source package.
  </para>
  </listitem>
-Line 2157 
 moderation for non-subscribers).
+Line 2283 
 moderation for non-subscribers).
  </para>
  </listitem>
  </orderedlist>
  <para>
  In any case, it is a bad idea to automatically put all team members in the
- Uploaders field.  It clutters the Developer's Package Overview listing (see
+ Uploaders field. It clutters the Developer's Package Overview listing (see
- <xref linkend="ddpo"/> ) with packages one doesn't really care for, and creates
+ <xref linkend="ddpo"/>) with packages one doesn't really care for, and creates
- a false sense of good maintenance.
+ a false sense of good maintenance. For the same reason, team members do
+ not need to add themselves to the Uploaders field just because they are
+ uploading the package once, they can do a “Team upload” (see <xref
+ linkend="nmu-team-upload"/>). Conversely, it it a bad idea to keep a
+ package with only the mailing list address as a Maintainer and no
+ Uploaders.
  </para>
  </section>
-Line 2170 
 a false sense of good maintenance.
+Line 2302 
 a false sense of good maintenance.
  <section id="testing-basics">
  <title>Basics</title>
  <para>
- Packages are usually installed into the `testing' distribution after they have
+ Packages are usually installed into the <literal>testing</literal> distribution
- undergone some degree of testing in unstable.
+ after they have undergone some degree of <literal>testing</literal> in
+ <literal>unstable</literal>.
  </para>
  <para>
  They must be in sync on all architectures and mustn't have dependencies that
  make them uninstallable; they also have to have generally no known
- release-critical bugs at the time they're installed into testing.  This way,
+ release-critical bugs at the time they're installed into <literal>testing
- `testing' should always be close to being a release candidate.  Please see
+ </literal>.  This way, <literal>testing</literal> should always be close to
- below for details.
+ being a release candidate.  Please see below for details.
  </para>
  </section>
-Line 2186 
 below for details.
+Line 2319 
 below for details.
  <title>Updates from unstable</title>
  <para>
  The scripts that update the <literal>testing</literal> distribution are run
- each day after the installation of the updated packages; these scripts are
+ twice each day, right after the installation of the updated packages; these
- called <literal>britney</literal>.  They generate the
+ scripts are called <literal>britney</literal>.  They generate the
  <filename>Packages</filename> files for the <literal>testing</literal>
  distribution, but they do so in an intelligent manner; they try to avoid any
  inconsistency and to use only non-buggy packages.
-Line 2202 
 the following:
+Line 2335 
 the following:
  The package must have been available in <literal>unstable</literal> for 2, 5
  or 10 days, depending on the urgency (high, medium or low).  Please note that
  the urgency is sticky, meaning that the highest urgency uploaded since the
- previous testing transition is taken into account.  Those delays may be doubled
+ previous <literal>testing</literal> transition is taken into account.  Those
- during a freeze, or testing transitions may be switched off altogether;
+ delays may be doubled during a freeze, or <literal>testing</literal>
+ transitions may be switched off altogether;
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
  It must not have new release-critical bugs (RC bugs affecting the version
  available in <literal>unstable</literal>, but not affecting the version in
  <literal>testing</literal>);
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
  It must be available on all architectures on which it has previously been built
- in unstable.  <xref linkend="madison"/> may be of interest to check that
+ in <literal>unstable</literal>.  <xref linkend="dak-ls"/> may be of interest
- information;
+ to check that information;
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
-Line 2236 
 all the necessary criteria);
+Line 2370 
 all the necessary criteria);
  </listitem>
  </itemizedlist>
  <para>
- To find out whether a package is progressing into testing or not, see the
+ To find out whether a package is progressing into <literal>testing</literal>
- testing script output on the <ulink
+ or not, see the <literal>testing</literal> script output on the <ulink
  url="&url-testing-maint;">web page of the testing
  distribution</ulink>, or use the program <command>grep-excuses</command> which
  is in the <systemitem role="package">devscripts</systemitem> package.  This
-Line 2260 
 scripts.  See below for details.
+Line 2394 
 scripts.  See below for details.
  </para>
  <para>
  Some further dependency analysis is shown on <ulink
- url="http://bjorn.haxx.se/debian/"></ulink> — but be warned, this page also
+ url="http://release.debian.org/migration/"></ulink> — but be warned, this page also
  shows build dependencies which are not considered by britney.
  </para>
  <section id="outdated">
  <title>out-of-date</title>
  <para>
  <!-- FIXME: better rename this file than document rampant professionalism? -->
- For the testing migration script, outdated means: There are different versions
+ For the <literal>testing</literal> migration script, outdated means: There are
- in unstable for the release architectures (except for the architectures in
+ different versions in <literal>unstable</literal> for the release architectures
- fuckedarches; fuckedarches is a list of architectures that don't keep up (in
+ (except for the architectures in fuckedarches; fuckedarches is a list of
- update_out.py), but currently, it's empty).  outdated has nothing whatsoever to
+ architectures that don't keep up (in <filename>update_out.py</filename>), but
- do with the architectures this package has in testing.
+ currently, it's empty).  outdated has nothing whatsoever to do with the
+ architectures this package has in <literal>testing</literal>.
  </para>
  <para>
  Consider this example:
-Line 2300 
 Consider this example:
+Line 2435 
 Consider this example:
  </tgroup>
  </informaltable>
  <para>
- The package is out of date on alpha in unstable, and will not go to testing.
+ The package is out of date on alpha in <literal>unstable</literal>, and will
- And removing foo from testing would not help at all, the package is still out
+ not go to <literal>testing</literal>. Removing the package would not help at all, the
- of date on alpha, and will not propagate to testing.
+ package is still out of date on <literal>alpha</literal>, and will not
+ propagate to testing.
  </para>
  <para>
- However, if ftp-master removes a package in unstable (here on arm):
+ However, if ftp-master removes a package in <literal>unstable</literal> (here
+ on <literal>arm</literal>):
  </para>
  <informaltable pgwide="1">
  <tgroup cols="4">
-Line 2335 
 However, if ftp-master removes a package
+Line 2472 
 However, if ftp-master removes a package
  </informaltable>
  <para>
  In this case, the package is up to date on all release architectures in
- unstable (and the extra hurd-i386 doesn't matter, as it's not a release
+ <literal>unstable</literal> (and the extra <literal>hurd-i386</literal>
- architecture).
+ doesn't matter, as it's not a release architecture).
  </para>
  <para>
  Sometimes, the question is raised if it is possible to allow packages in that
-Line 2355 
 with the new version of <literal>b</lite
+Line 2492 
 with the new version of <literal>b</lite
  be removed to allow <literal>b</literal> in.
  </para>
  <para>
- Of course, there is another reason to remove a package from testing: It's just
+ Of course, there is another reason to remove a package from <literal>testing
- too buggy (and having a single RC-bug is enough to be in this state).
+ </literal>: It's just too buggy (and having a single RC-bug is enough to be
+ in this state).
  </para>
  <para>
- Furthermore, if a package has been removed from unstable, and no package in
+ Furthermore, if a package has been removed from <literal>unstable</literal>,
- testing depends on it any more, then it will automatically be removed.
+ and no package in <literal>testing</literal> depends on it any more, then it
+ will automatically be removed.
  </para>
  </section>
-Line 2411 
 happens to one of your packages.
+Line 2550 
 happens to one of your packages.
  <section id="s5.13.2.4">
  <title>influence of package in testing</title>
  <para>
- Generally, there is nothing that the status of a package in testing means for
+ Generally, there is nothing that the status of a package in <literal>testing
- transition of the next version from unstable to testing, with two exceptions:
+ </literal> means for transition of the next version from <literal>unstable
+ </literal> to <literal>testing</literal>, with two exceptions:
  If the RC-bugginess of the package goes down, it may go in even if it is still
- RC-buggy.  The second exception is if the version of the package in testing is
+ RC-buggy.  The second exception is if the version of the package in <literal>
- out of sync on the different arches: Then any arch might just upgrade to the
+ testing</literal> is out of sync on the different arches: Then any arch might
- version of the source package; however, this can happen only if the package was
+ just upgrade to the version of the source package; however, this can happen
- previously forced through, the arch is in fuckedarches, or there was no binary
+ only if the package was previously forced through, the arch is in fuckedarches,
- package of that arch present in unstable at all during the testing migration.
+ or there was no binary package of that arch present in <literal>unstable
+ </literal> at all during the <literal>testing</literal> migration.
  </para>
  <para>
- In summary this means: The only influence that a package being in testing has
+ In summary this means: The only influence that a package being in <literal>
- on a new version of the same package is that the new version might go in
+ testing</literal> has on a new version of the same package is that the new
- easier.
+ version might go in easier.
  </para>
  </section>
-Line 2442 
 part of britney.) (There is a similar th
+Line 2583 
 part of britney.) (There is a similar th
  is not described here.  If you're interested in that, please peruse the code.)
  </para>
  <para>
- Now, the more complex part happens: Britney tries to update testing with the
+ Now, the more complex part happens: Britney tries to update <literal>testing
- valid candidates; first, each package alone, and then larger and even larger
+ </literal> with the valid candidates. For that, britney tries to add each
- sets of packages together.  Each try is accepted if testing is not more
+ valid candidate to the testing distribution. If the number of uninstallable
- uninstallable after the update than before.  (Before and after this part, some
+ packages in <literal>testing</literal> doesn't increase, the package is
- hints are processed; but as only release masters can hint, this is probably not
+ accepted. From that point on, the accepted package is considered to be part
- so important for you.)
+ of <literal>testing</literal>, 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.
  </para>
  <para>
  If you want to see more details, you can look it up on
- merkel:/org/&ftp-debian-org;/testing/update_out/ (or there in
+ <filename>merkel:/org/&ftp-debian-org;/testing/update_out/</filename> (or
- ~aba/testing/update_out to see a setup with a smaller packages file).  Via web,
+ in <filename>merkel:~aba/testing/update_out</filename> to see a setup with
- it's at <ulink
+ a smaller packages file).  Via web, it's at <ulink
  url="http://&ftp-master-host;/testing/update_out_code/"></ulink>
  </para>
  <para>
-Line 2467 
 url="http://&ftp-master-host;/testing/hi
+Line 2610 
 url="http://&ftp-master-host;/testing/hi
  <section id="t-p-u">
  <title>Direct updates to testing</title>
  <para>
- The testing distribution is fed with packages from unstable according to the
+ The <literal>testing</literal> distribution is fed with packages from
- rules explained above.  However, in some cases, it is necessary to upload
+ <literal>unstable</literal> according to the rules explained above.  However,
- packages built only for testing.  For that, you may want to upload to
+ in some cases, it is necessary to upload packages built only for <literal>
- <literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal>.
+ testing</literal>.  For that, you may want to upload to <literal>
+ testing-proposed-updates</literal>.
  </para>
  <para>
  Keep in mind that packages uploaded there are not automatically processed, they
-Line 2482 
 give on &email-debian-devel-announce;.
+Line 2626 
 give on &email-debian-devel-announce;.
  <para>
  You should not upload to <literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal> when you
  can update your packages through <literal>unstable</literal>.  If you can't
- (for example because you have a newer development version in unstable), you may
+ (for example because you have a newer development version in <literal>unstable
- use this facility, but it is recommended that you ask for authorization from
+ </literal>), you may use this facility, but it is recommended that you ask for
- the release manager first.  Even if a package is frozen, updates through
+ authorization from the release manager first.  Even if a package is frozen,
- unstable are possible, if the upload via unstable does not pull in any new
+ updates through <literal>unstable</literal> are possible, if the upload via
- dependencies.
+ <literal>unstable</literal> does not pull in any new dependencies.
  </para>
  <para>
- Version numbers are usually selected by adding the codename of the testing
+ Version numbers are usually selected by adding the codename of the
- distribution and a running number, like 1.2sarge1 for the first upload through
+ <literal>testing</literal> distribution and a running number, like
- <literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal> of package version 1.2.
+ <literal>1.2sarge1</literal> for the first upload through
+ <literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal> of package version
+ <literal>1.2</literal>.
  </para>
  <para>
  Please make sure you didn't miss any of these items in your upload:
-Line 2500 
 Please make sure you didn't miss any of
+Line 2646 
 Please make sure you didn't miss any of
  <listitem>
  <para>
  Make sure that your package really needs to go through
- <literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal>, and can't go through unstable;
+ <literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal>, and can't go through <literal>
+ unstable</literal>;
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
-Line 2547 
 at &email-debian-release; and ask them t
+Line 2694 
 at &email-debian-release; and ask them t
  <title>What are release-critical bugs, and how do they get counted?</title>
  <para>
  All bugs of some higher severities are by default considered release-critical;
- currently, these are critical, grave, and serious bugs.
+ currently, these are <literal>critical</literal>, <literal>grave</literal> and
+ <literal>serious</literal> bugs.
  </para>
  <para>
  Such bugs are presumed to have an impact on the chances that the package will
- be released with the stable release of Debian: in general, if a package has
+ be released with the <literal>stable</literal> release of Debian: in general,
- open release-critical bugs filed on it, it won't get into testing, and
+ if a package has open release-critical bugs filed on it, it won't get into
- consequently won't be released in stable.
+ <literal>testing</literal>, and consequently won't be released in <literal>
- </para>
+ stable</literal>.
- <para>
- The unstable bug count are all release-critical bugs without either any
- release-tag (such as potato, woody) or with release-tag sid; also, only if they
- are neither fixed nor set to sarge-ignore.  The testing bug count for a package
- is considered to be roughly the bug count of unstable count at the last point
- when the testing version equalled the unstable version.
  </para>
  <para>
- This will change post-sarge, as soon as we have versions in the bug tracking
+ The <literal>unstable</literal> bug count are all release-critical bugs which
- system.
+ are marked to apply to <replaceable>package</replaceable>/<replaceable>version
+ </replaceable> combinations that are available in unstable for a release
+ architecture. The <literal>testing</literal> bug count is defined analogously.
  </para>
  </section>
  <section id="s5.13.4.2">
- <title>How could installing a package into testing possibly break other packages?</title>
+ <title>How could installing a package into <literal>testing</literal> possibly
+ break other packages?</title>
  <para>
  The structure of the distribution archives is such that they can only contain
  one version of a package; a package is defined by its name.  So when the source
- package acmefoo is installed into testing, along with its binary packages
+ package <literal>acmefoo</literal> is installed into <literal>testing</literal>,
- acme-foo-bin, acme-bar-bin, libacme-foo1 and libacme-foo-dev, the old version
+ along with its binary packages <literal>acme-foo-bin</literal>, <literal>
- is removed.
+ acme-bar-bin</literal>, <literal>libacme-foo1</literal> and <literal>
+ libacme-foo-dev</literal>, the old version is removed.
  </para>
  <para>
  However, the old version may have provided a binary package with an old soname
- of a library, such as libacme-foo0.  Removing the old acmefoo will remove
+ of a library, such as <literal>libacme-foo0</literal>.  Removing the old
- libacme-foo0, which will break any packages which depend on it.
+ <literal>acmefoo</literal> will remove <literal>libacme-foo0</literal>, which
+ will break any packages which depend on it.
  </para>
  <para>
  Evidently, this mainly affects packages which provide changing sets of binary
-Line 2592 
 the ==, &lt;=, or &lt;&lt; varieties.
+Line 2739 
 the ==, &lt;=, or &lt;&lt; varieties.
  When the set of binary packages provided by a source package change in this
  way, all the packages that depended on the old binaries will have to be updated
  to depend on the new binaries instead.  Because installing such a source
- package into testing breaks all the packages that depended on it in testing,
+ package into <literal>testing</literal> breaks all the packages that depended on
+ it in <literal>testing</literal>,
  some care has to be taken now: all the depending packages must be updated and
  ready to be installed themselves so that they won't be broken, and, once
  everything is ready, manual intervention by the release manager or an assistant
-Line 2600 
 is normally required.
+Line 2748 
 is normally required.
  </para>
  <para>
  If you are having problems with complicated groups of packages like this,
- contact debian-devel or debian-release for help.
+ contact &email-debian-devel; or &email-debian-release; for help.
  </para>
  </section>

 Legend:



Removed from v.5196
 


changed lines


 
Added in v.7314
 Legend:



Removed from v.5196
 


changed lines


 
Added in v.7314
-Removed from v.5196
+Added in v.7314

	ViewVC Help
Powered by ViewVC 1.1.5