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

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

Parent Directory | Revision Log | View Patch Patch

-revision 5200 by he,
Sun Jun  1 20:25:44 2008 UTC
+revision 8539 by taffit-guest,
Thu Mar  3 03:16:36 2011 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 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
  upstream version of the software looks like this:
  </para>
  <screen>
-   * new upstream version
+   * New upstream release.
  </screen>
  <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 163 
 output a very verbose description of the
+Line 174 
 output a very verbose description of the
  </para>
  <para>
  Normally, a package should <emphasis>not</emphasis> be uploaded if it causes
- lintian to emit errors (they will start with <literal>E</literal>).
+ <command>lintian</command> to emit errors (they will start with <literal>E</literal>).
  </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
+ file (<filename>.dsc</filename>) and the source tarball
- (<literal>.tar.gz</literal>).  A source package of a non-native package
+ (<filename>.tar.{gz,bz2,lzma}</filename>). 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
+ (<filename>.orig.tar.{gz,bz2,lzma}</filename>) and the Debian changes
- (<literal>.diff.gz</literal>).
+ (<filename>.diff.gz</filename> for the source format “1.0” or
+ <filename>.debian.tar.{gz,bz2,lzma}</filename> 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 <filename>*.orig.tar.{gz,bz2,lzma}</filename> 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: <literal>stable</literal>,
- <literal>unstable</literal>, <litersl>testing-proposed-updates</literal> and
+ <literal>unstable</literal>, <literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal> and
  <literal>experimental</literal>.  Normally, packages are uploaded into
  <literal>unstable</literal>.
  </para>
  <para>
- Actually, there are two other possible distributions: <literal>stable-security
+ Actually, there are two other possible distributions: <literal>stable-security</literal>
- </literal> and <literal>testing-security</literal>, but read
+ and <literal>testing-security</literal>, but read
  <xref linkend="bug-security"/> for more information on those.
  </para>
  <para>
-Line 284 
 It is not possible to upload a package i
+Line 299 
 It is not possible to upload a package i
  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 <literal>stable</literal> if
  one of the following happens:
-Line 321 
 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 332 
 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 <literal>unstable</literal> will be
  rejected.  Making changes to dependencies of other packages (by messing with
- <literal>Provides</literal> or <literal>shlibs</literal> files), possibly
+ <literal>Provides</literal> or <filename>shlibs</filename> files), possibly
  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 370 
 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 383 
 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 425 
 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 (<literal>oldstable-security</literal>, <literal>stable-security
+ upload queue (<literal>oldstable-security</literal>, <literal>stable-security</literal>,
- </literal>, etc.) without prior authorization from the security team.  If the
+ etc.) without prior authorization from the security team.  If the
  package does not exactly meet the team's requirements, it will cause many
  problems and delays in dealing with the unwanted upload.  For details, please
- see section <xref linkend="bug-security"/> .
+ 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 <literal>
+ There is an alternative upload queue in Europe at <ulink
- security.debian.org</literal> are mostly unusable due to the login restrictions
+ url="ftp://&ftp-eu-upload-host;&upload-queue;"/>. It operates in
- on those hosts.
+ the same way as <literal>&ftp-upload-host;</literal>, but should be faster
- </para>
+ for European developers.
- <para>
- The anonymous queues on ftp.uni-erlangen.de and ftp.uk.debian.org are currently
- down.  Work is underway to resurrect them.
  </para>
  <para>
- The queues on master.debian.org, samosa.debian.org, master.debian.or.jp, and
+ Packages can also be uploaded via ssh to
- ftp.chiark.greenend.org.uk are down permanently, and will not be resurrected.
+ <literal>&ssh-upload-host;</literal>; files should be put
- The queue in Japan will be replaced with a new queue on hp.debian.or.jp some
+ <literal>/srv/upload.debian.org/UploadQueue</literal>. This queue does
- day.
+ not support <link linkend="delayed-incoming">delayed uploads</link>.
  </para>
  </section>
-Line 459 
 The Debian archive maintainers are respo
+Line 472 
 The Debian archive maintainers are respo
  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 <literal>unstable</literal> distribution are handled
  automatically.  In other cases, notably new packages, placing the uploaded
  package into the distribution is handled manually.  When uploads are handled
  manually, the change to the archive may take up to a month to occur.  Please
  be patient.
-Line 506 
 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 520 
 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 531 
 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 584 
 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 597 
 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 660 
 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 710 
 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 719 
 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 762 
 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 780 
 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 789 
 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 
 outstanding security problems, helping m
+Line 838 
 outstanding security problems, helping m
  fixing them themselves, sending security advisories, and maintaining
  <literal>security.debian.org</literal>.
  </para>
- <!-- information about the security database goes here once it's ready -->
- <!-- (mdz) -->
  <para>
  When you become aware of a security-related bug in a Debian package, whether or
  not you are the maintainer, collect pertinent information about the problem,
  and promptly contact the security team at
  &email-security-team; as soon as possible.  <emphasis
- role="strong">DO NOT UPLOAD</emphasis> any packages for <literal>stable</literal>;
+ role="strong">DO NOT UPLOAD</emphasis> any packages for <literal>stable</literal>
-  the security team will do that.  Useful information includes, for example:
+ without contacting the team.  Useful information includes, for example:
  </para>
  <itemizedlist>
  <listitem>
  <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
  <literal>testing</literal> and <literal>unstable</literal>.
  </para>
  </listitem>
-Line 834 
 The nature of the fix, if any is availab
+Line 862 
 The nature of the fix, if any is availab
  <listitem>
  <para>
  Any fixed packages that you have prepared yourself (send only the
- <literal>.diff.gz</literal> and <literal>.dsc</literal> files and read <xref
+ <filename>.diff.gz</filename> and <filename>.dsc</filename> files and read <xref
  linkend="bug-security-building"/> first)
  </para>
  </listitem>
-Line 847 
 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 909 
 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
  <literal>unstable</literal> (or
- anywhere else, such as a public CVS repository).  It is not sufficient to
+ anywhere else, such as a public VCS repository).  It is not sufficient to
  obfuscate the details of the change, as the code itself is public, and can (and
  will) be examined by the general public.
  </para>
-Line 920 
 There are two reasons for releasing info
+Line 971 
 There are two reasons for releasing info
  requested: the problem has been known for a while, or the problem or exploit
  has become public.
  </para>
+ <para>
+ The Security Team has a PGP-key to enable encrypted communication about
+ sensitive issues. See the <ulink url="http://www.debian.org/security/faq#contact">Security Team FAQ</ulink> for details.
+ </para>
  </section>
  <section id="bug-security-advisories">
-Line 1048 
 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 1056 
 Be sure to verify the following items:
+Line 1111 
 Be sure to verify the following items:
  <itemizedlist>
  <listitem>
  <para>
- Target the right distribution in your <filename>debian/changelog</filename>.
+ <emphasis role="strong">Target the right distribution</emphasis>
+ in your <filename>debian/changelog</filename>.
  For <literal>stable</literal> this is <literal>stable-security</literal> and
- for testing this is <literal>testing-security</literal>, and for the previous
+ for <literal>testing</literal> this is <literal>testing-security</literal>, and for the previous
  stable release, this is <literal>oldstable-security</literal>.  Do not target
  <replaceable>distribution</replaceable><literal>-proposed-updates</literal> or
  <literal>stable</literal>!
-Line 1066 
 stable release, this is <literal>oldstab
+Line 1122 
 stable release, this is <literal>oldstab
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
- The upload should have urgency=high.
+ The upload should have <emphasis role="strong">urgency=high</emphasis>.
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
  Make descriptive, meaningful changelog entries.  Others will rely on them to
- determine whether a particular bug was fixed.  Always include an external
+ determine whether a particular bug was fixed.  Add <literal>closes:</literal>
- reference, preferably a CVE identifier, so that it can be cross-referenced.
+ statements for any <emphasis role="strong">Debian bugs</emphasis> filed.
- Include the same information in the changelog for <literal>unstable</literal>,
+ Always include an external reference, preferably a <emphasis role="strong">CVE
- so that it is clear
+ identifier</emphasis>, so that it can be cross-referenced. However, if a CVE
- that the same bug was fixed, as this is very helpful when verifying that the
+ identifier has not yet been assigned, do not wait for it but continue the
- bug is fixed in the next stable release.  If a CVE identifier has not yet been
+ process. The identifier can be cross-referenced later.
- assigned, the security team will request one so that it can be included in the
- package and in the advisory.
- </para>
- </listitem>
- <listitem>
- <para>
- Make sure the version number is proper.  It must be greater than the current
- package, but less than package versions in later distributions.  If in doubt,
- test it with <literal>dpkg --compare-versions</literal>.  Be careful not to
- re-use a version number that you have already used for a previous upload.  For
- <literal>testing</literal>, there must be a higher version in
- <literal>unstable</literal>.  If there is none yet (for example, if
- <literal>testing</literal> and <literal>unstable</literal> have the same
- version) you must upload a new version to <literal>unstable</literal> first.
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
- Do not make source-only uploads if your package has any binary-all packages (do
+ Make sure the <emphasis role="strong">version number</emphasis> is proper.
- not use the <literal>-S</literal> option to
+ It must be greater than the current package, but less than package versions in
- <command>dpkg-buildpackage</command>).  The <command>buildd</command>
+ later distributions.  If in doubt, test it with <literal>dpkg
- infrastructure will not build those.  This point applies to normal package
+ --compare-versions</literal>.  Be careful not to re-use a version number that
- uploads as well.
+ you have already used for a previous upload, or one that conflicts with a
+ binNMU. The convention is to append
+ <literal>+</literal><replaceable>codename</replaceable><literal>1</literal>, e.g.
+ <literal>1:2.4.3-4+lenny1</literal>, of course increasing 1 for any subsequent
+ uploads.
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
  Unless the upstream source has been uploaded to <literal>security.debian.org
- </literal> before (by a previous security update), build the upload with full
+ </literal> before (by a previous security update), build the upload <emphasis
- upstream source (<literal>dpkg-buildpackage -sa</literal>).  If there has been
+ role="strong">with full upstream source</emphasis> (<literal>dpkg-buildpackage
- a previous upload to </literal>security.debian.org</literal> with the same
+ -sa</literal>).  If there has been a previous upload to
- upstream version, you may upload without upstream source (<literal>
+ <literal>security.debian.org</literal> with the same upstream version, you may
- dpkg-buildpackage -sd</literal>).
+ upload without upstream source (<literal>dpkg-buildpackage -sd</literal>).
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
- Be sure to use the exact same <filename>*.orig.tar.gz</filename> as used in the
+ Be sure to use the <emphasis role="strong">exact same
+ <filename>*.orig.tar.{gz,bz2,lzma}</filename></emphasis> as used in the
  normal archive, otherwise it is not possible to move the security fix into the
  main archives later.
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
- Build the package on a clean system which only has packages installed from the
+ Build the package on a <emphasis role="strong">clean system</emphasis> which only
- distribution you are building for.  If you do not have such a system yourself,
+ has packages installed from the distribution you are building for. If you do not
- you can use a debian.org machine (see <xref linkend="server-machines"/> ) or
+ have such a system yourself, you can use a debian.org machine (see
- setup a chroot (see <xref linkend="pbuilder"/> and <xref
+ <xref linkend="server-machines"/>) or setup a chroot (see
- linkend="debootstrap"/> ).
+ <xref linkend="pbuilder"/> and <xref linkend="debootstrap"/>).
  </para>
  </listitem>
  </itemizedlist>
-Line 1136 
 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 (<literal>oldstable-security</literal>, <literal>stable-security
+ upload queue (<literal>oldstable-security</literal>, <literal>stable-security</literal>,
- </literal>, etc.) without prior authorization from the security team.  If the
+ etc.) without prior authorization from the security team.  If the
  package does not exactly meet the team's requirements, it will cause many
  problems and delays in dealing with the unwanted upload.
  </para>
  <para>
- Do <emphasis role="strong">NOT</emphasis> upload your fix to <literal>
+ Do <emphasis role="strong">NOT</emphasis> upload your fix to
- proposed-updates</literal> without coordinating with the security team.
+ <literal>proposed-updates</literal> without coordinating with the security team.
  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,
-Line 1155 
 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 1201 
 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 1212 
 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 1222 
 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
- depends on it.
+ <literal>testing</literal> depends on it.
  </para>
  <para>
  There is one exception when an explicit removal request is not necessary: If a
-Line 1249 
 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 1263 
 the <command>apt-cache</command> program
+Line 1337 
 the <command>apt-cache</command> program
  role="package">apt</systemitem> package.  When invoked as <literal>apt-cache
  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>,
+ Other useful programs include <command>apt-cache rdepends</command>,
- <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 1273 
 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 1294 
 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;">Debian
- the package with the obsolete name.  Do not forget to properly reassign the
+ 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 1311 
 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 1361 
 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 1377 
 more information).
+Line 1464 
 more information).
  If you take over an old package, you probably want to be listed as the
  package's official maintainer in the bug system.  This will happen
  automatically once you upload a new version with an updated
- <literal>Maintainer:</literal> field, although it can take a few hours after
+ <literal>Maintainer</literal> field, although it can take a few hours after
  the upload is done.  If you do not expect to upload a new version for a while,
  you can use <xref linkend="pkg-tracking-system"/> to get the bug reports.
  However, make sure that the old maintainer has no problem with the fact that
-Line 1399 
 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</literal>
- architecture, which amounts to &number-of-arches; more builds.
+ 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 1433 
 Make sure that your <literal>Build-Depen
+Line 1521 
 Make sure that your <literal>Build-Depen
  <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 <literal>unstable</literal> chroot environment (see <xref
- linkend="debootstrap"/> ).
+ 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 1453 
 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 1471 
 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 1487 
 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 1500 
 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 <filename>debian/rules</filename> 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 1531 
 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 1545 
 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 1571 
 source code).
+Line 1664 
 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</literal>
- NMU), your NMU should have a version number of ``3.4+b2''.  <footnote><para> In
+ (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>.<footnote><para>
- revision to denote their recompilation-only status; however, this syntax was
+ 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 1593 
 to only build the architecture-dependent
+Line 1689 
 to only build the architecture-dependent
  <title>When to do a source NMU if you are a porter</title>
  <para>
  Porters doing a source NMU generally follow the guidelines found in <xref
- linkend="nmu"/> , just like non-porters.  However, it is expected that the wait
+ linkend="nmu"/>, just like non-porters.  However, it is expected that the wait
  cycle for a porter's source NMU is smaller than for a non-porter, since porters
  have to cope with a large quantity of packages.  Again, the situation varies
  depending on the distribution they are uploading to.  It also varies whether
-Line 1601 
 the architecture is a candidate for incl
+Line 1697 
 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 <literal>unstable</literal>, the above
  guidelines for porting should be followed, with two variations.  Firstly, the
  acceptable waiting period — the time between when the bug is submitted to
  the BTS and when it is OK to do an NMU — is seven days for porters working
-Line 1609 
 on the <literal>unstable</literal> distr
+Line 1705 
 on the <literal>unstable</literal> distr
  if the problem is critical and imposes hardship on the porting effort, at the
  discretion of the porter group.  (Remember, none of this is Policy, just
  mutually agreed upon guidelines.) For uploads to <literal>stable</literal> or
- <literal>testing </literal>, please coordinate with the appropriate release
+ <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 1663 
 with the porters.
+Line 1759 
 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</systemitem>
- which simply check out and attempt to auto-build packages which need to be
+ 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</systemitem>
- <para>
+ 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 1704 
 flavor of Debian built with <command>gcc
+Line 1796 
 flavor of Debian built with <command>gcc
  also enable Debian to recompile entire distributions quickly.
  </para>
  <para>
- The buildds admins of each arch can be contacted at the mail address
+ The wanna-build team, in charge of the buildds,
- <literal><replaceable>arch</replaceable>@buildd.debian.org</literal>.
+ can be reached at <literal>debian-wb-team@lists.debian.org</literal>.
+ To determine who (wanna-build team, release team) and how (mail, BTS)
+ to contact, refer to <ulink url="&url-wb-team;"></ulink>.
+ </para>
+ <para>
+ When requesting binNMUs or give-backs (retries after a failed build),
+ please use the format described at <ulink url="&url-release-wb;"/>.
  </para>
  </section>
  </section>
-Line 1717 
 The buildds admins of each arch can be c
+Line 1817 
 The buildds admins of each arch can be c
  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 1736 
 allow the package to build as soon as th
+Line 1836 
 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>
  <para>
  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
+ 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>
  </itemizedlist>
  <para>
  Please note that it is insufficient to only add your package to
- Packages-arch-specific without making it fail to build on unsupported
+ <filename>Packages-arch-specific</filename> without making it fail to build on unsupported
  architectures: A porter or any other person trying to build your package might
  accidently upload it without noticing it doesn't work.  If in the past some
  binary packages were uploaded on unsupported architectures, request their
  removal by filing a bug against <systemitem
- role="package">ftp.debian.org</systemitem>
+ role="package">ftp.debian.org</systemitem>.
  </para>
  </section>
-Line 1768 
 role="package">ftp.debian.org</systemite
+Line 1867 
 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 <literal>testing</literal> or <literal>unstable</literal>, this
- order of steps is recommended:
  </para>
  <itemizedlist>
  <listitem>
  <para>
- Make sure that the package's bugs that the NMU is meant to address are all
+ Does your NMU really fix bugs? Fixing cosmetic issues or changing the
- filed in the Debian Bug Tracking System (BTS).  If they are not, submit them
+ packaging style in NMUs is discouraged.
- immediately.
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
- Wait a few days for the response from the maintainer.  If you don't get any
+ Did you give enough time to the maintainer? When was the bug reported to the
- response, you may want to help them by sending the patch that fixes the bug.
+ BTS? Being busy for a week or two isn't unusual.  Is the bug so severe that it
- Don't forget to tag the bug with the patch keyword.
+ needs to be fixed right now, or can it wait a few more days?
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
- Wait a few more days.  If you still haven't got an answer from the maintainer,
+ How confident are you about your changes? Please remember the Hippocratic Oath:
- send them a mail announcing your intent to NMU the package.  Prepare an NMU as
+ "Above all, do no harm." It is better to leave a package with an open grave bug
- described in this section, and test it carefully on your machine (cf.  <xref
+ than applying a non-functional patch, or one that hides the bug instead of
- linkend="sanitycheck"/> ).  Double check that your patch doesn't have any
+ resolving it. If you are not 100% sure of what you did, it might be a good idea
- unexpected side effects.  Make sure your patch is as small and as
+ to seek advice from others. Remember that if you break something in your NMU,
- non-disruptive as it can be.
+ many people will be very unhappy about it.
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
- Upload your package to incoming in <filename>DELAYED/7-day</filename> (cf.
+ Have you clearly expressed your intention to NMU, at least in the BTS?
- <xref linkend="delayed-incoming"/> ), send the final patch to the maintainer
+ It is also a good idea to try to contact the
- via the BTS, and explain to them that they have 7 days to react if they want to
+ maintainer by other means (private email, IRC).
- cancel the NMU.
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
- Follow what happens, you're responsible for any bug that you introduced with
+ If the maintainer is usually active and responsive, have you tried to contact
- your NMU.  You should probably use <xref linkend="pkg-tracking-system"/> (PTS)
+ him? In general it should be considered preferable that a maintainer takes care
- to stay informed of the state of the package after your NMU.
+ of an issue himself and that he is given the chance to review and correct your
+ patch, because he can be expected to be more aware of potential issues which an
+ NMUer might miss. It is often a better use of everyone's time if the maintainer
+ is given an opportunity to upload a fix on their own.
  </para>
  </listitem>
  </itemizedlist>
  <para>
- At times, the release manager or an organized group of developers can announce
+ When doing an NMU, you must first make sure that your intention to NMU is
- a certain period of time in which the NMU rules are relaxed.  This usually
+ clear.  Then, you must send a patch with the differences between the
- involves shortening the period during which one is to wait before uploading the
+ current package and your proposed NMU to the BTS. The
- fixes, and shortening the DELAYED period.  It is important to notice that even
+ <command>nmudiff</command> script in the <systemitem role="package">devscripts</systemitem> package
- in these so-called bug squashing party times, the NMU'er has to file bugs and
+ might be helpful.
- contact the developer first, and act later.  Please see <xref
+ </para>
- linkend="qa-bsp"/> for details.
+ <para>
- </para>
+ While preparing the patch, you should better be aware of any package-specific
- <para>
+ practices that the maintainer might be using. Taking them into account reduces
- For the <literal>testing</literal> distribution, the rules may be changed by
+ the burden of getting your changes integrated back in the normal package
- the release managers.  Please take additional care, and acknowledge that the
+ workflow and thus increases the possibilities that that will happen. A good
- usual way for a package to enter <literal>testing</literal> is through
+ place where to look for for possible package-specific practices is
- <literal>unstable</literal>.
+ <ulink url="&url-debian-policy;ch-source.html#s-readmesource"><filename>debian/README.source</filename></ulink>.
  </para>
  <para>
- For the stable distribution, please take extra care.  Of course, the release
+ Unless you have an excellent reason not to do so, you must then give some time
- managers may also change the rules here.  Please verify before you upload that
+ to the maintainer to react (for example, by uploading to the
- all your changes are OK for inclusion into the next stable release by the
+ <literal>DELAYED</literal> queue).  Here are some recommended values to use for delays:
- release manager.
  </para>
+ <itemizedlist>
+ <listitem>
  <para>
- When a security bug is detected, the security team may do an NMU, using their
+ Upload fixing only release-critical bugs older than 7 days: 2 days
- own rules.  Please refer to <xref linkend="bug-security"/> for more
- information.
  </para>
+ </listitem>
+ <listitem>
  <para>
- For the differences for Porters NMUs, please see <xref
+ Upload fixing only release-critical and important bugs: 5 days
- linkend="source-nmu-when-porter"/> .
  </para>
+ </listitem>
+ <listitem>
  <para>
- Of course, it is always possible to agree on special rules with a maintainer
+ Other NMUs: 10 days
- (like the maintainer asking please upload this fix directly for me, and no diff
- required).
  </para>
- </section>
+ </listitem>
+ </itemizedlist>
- <section id="nmu-version">
- <title>NMU version numbering</title>
- <para>
- Whenever you have made a change to a package, no matter how trivial, the
- 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 <literal>testing</literal> or <literal>stable
+ This is not a license to perform NMUs thoughtlessly.  If you NMU when it is
- </literal>, sometimes, you need to fork the version number tree.  For this,
+ clear that the maintainers are active and would have acknowledged a patch in a
- version numbers like 1.1-3sarge0.1 could be used.
+ timely manner, or if you ignore the recommendations of this document, your
+ upload might be a cause of conflict with the maintainer.
+ You should always be prepared to
+ defend the wisdom of any NMU you perform on its own merits.
  </para>
  </section>
  <section id="nmu-changelog">
- <title>Source NMUs must have a new changelog entry</title>
+ <title>NMUs and <filename>debian/changelog</filename></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
+ <filename>debian/changelog</filename>, telling what has changed with this
+ upload.  The first line of this entry must explicitely mention that this upload is an NMU, e.g.:
  </para>
  <screen>
-   * Non-maintainer upload
+   * Non-maintainer upload.
  </screen>
- </section>
- <section id="nmu-patch">
- <title>Source NMUs and the Bug Tracking System</title>
  <para>
- Maintainers other than the official package maintainer should make as few
+ The way to version NMUs differs for native and non-native packages.
- changes to the package as possible, and they should always send a patch as a
+ </para>
- unified context diff (<literal>diff -u</literal>) detailing their changes to
+ <para>
- the Bug Tracking System.
+ If the package is a native package (without a Debian revision in the version number),
+ the version must be the version of the last maintainer upload, plus
+ <literal>+nmu<replaceable>X</replaceable></literal>, where
+ <replaceable>X</replaceable> is a counter starting at <literal>1</literal>.
+ If
+ the last upload was also an NMU, the counter should be increased.  For example,
+ if the current version is <literal>1.5</literal>, then an NMU would get
+ version <literal>1.5+nmu1</literal>.
+ </para>
+ <para>
+ If the package is a not a native package, you should add a minor version number
+ to the Debian revision part of the version number (the portion after the last
+ hyphen). This extra number must start at <literal>1</literal>.  For example,
+ if the current version is <literal>1.5-2</literal>, then an NMU would get
+ version <literal>1.5-2.1</literal>. If a new upstream version
+ is packaged in the NMU, the Debian revision is set to <literal>0</literal>, for
+ example <literal>1.6-0.1</literal>.
+ </para>
+ <para>
+ In both cases, if the last upload was also an NMU, the counter should
+ be increased. For example, if the current version is
+ <literal>1.5+nmu3</literal> (a native package which has already been
+ NMUed), the NMU would get version <literal>1.5+nmu4</literal>.
+ </para>
+ <para>
+ A special versioning scheme is needed to avoid disrupting the maintainer's
+ work, since using an integer for the Debian revision will potentially
+ conflict with a maintainer upload already in preparation at the time of an
+ NMU, or even one sitting in the ftp NEW queue.
+ It also has the
+ benefit of making it visually clear that a package in the archive was not made
+ by the official maintainer.
  </para>
  <para>
- What if you are simply recompiling the package?  If you just need to recompile
+ If you upload a package to testing or stable, you sometimes need to "fork" the
- it for a single architecture, then you may do a binary-only NMU as described in
+ version number tree. This is the case for security uploads, for example.  For
- <xref linkend="binary-only-nmu"/> which doesn't require any patch to be sent.
+ this, a version of the form
- If you want the package to be recompiled for all architectures, then you do a
+ <literal>+deb<replaceable>XY</replaceable>u<replaceable>Z</replaceable></literal>
- source NMU as usual and you will have to send a patch.
+ should be used, where <replaceable>X</replaceable> and
+ <replaceable>Y</replaceable> are the major and minor release numbers, and
+ <replaceable>Z</replaceable> is a counter starting at <literal>1</literal>.
+ When the release number is not yet known (often the case for
+ <literal>testing</literal>, at the beginning of release cycles), the lowest
+ release number higher than the last stable release number must be used.  For
+ example, while Lenny (Debian 5.0) is stable, a security NMU to stable for a
+ package at version <literal>1.5-3</literal> would have version
+ <literal>1.5-3+deb50u1</literal>, whereas a security NMU to Squeeze would get
+ version <literal>1.5-3+deb60u1</literal>. After the release of Squeeze, security
+ uploads to the <literal>testing</literal> distribution will be versioned
+ <literal>+deb61uZ</literal>, until it is known whether that release will be
+ Debian 6.1 or Debian 7.0 (if that becomes the case, uploads will be versioned
+ as <literal>+deb70uZ</literal>).
  </para>
+ </section>
+ <section id="nmu-delayed">
+ <title>Using the <literal>DELAYED/</literal> queue</title>
  <para>
- Bugs fixed by source NMUs used to be tagged fixed instead of closed, but since
+ Having to wait for a response after you request permission to NMU is
- version tracking is in place, such bugs are now also closed with the NMU
+ inefficient, because it costs the NMUer a context switch to come back to the
- version.
+ issue.
+ The <literal>DELAYED</literal> queue (see <xref linkend="delayed-incoming"/>)
+ allows the developer doing the NMU to perform all the necessary tasks at the
+ same time. For instance, instead of telling the maintainer that you will
+ upload the updated
+ package in 7 days, you should upload the package to
+ <literal>DELAYED/7</literal> and tell the maintainer that he has 7 days to
+ react.  During this time, the maintainer can ask you to delay the upload some
+ more, or cancel your upload.
  </para>
  <para>
- Also, after doing an NMU, you have to send the information to the existing bugs
+ The <literal>DELAYED</literal> queue should not be used to put additional
- that are fixed by your NMU, including the unified diff.  Historically, it was
+ pressure on the maintainer. In particular, it's important that you are
- custom to open a new bug and include a patch showing all the changes you have
+ available to cancel or delay the upload before the delay expires since the
- made.  The normal maintainer will either apply the patch or employ an alternate
+ maintainer cannot cancel the upload himself.
- method of fixing the problem.  Sometimes bugs are fixed independently upstream,
- which is another good reason to back out an NMU's patch.  If the maintainer
- decides not to apply the NMU's patch but to release a new version, the
- maintainer needs to ensure that the new upstream version really fixes each
- problem that was fixed in the non-maintainer release.
  </para>
  <para>
- In addition, the normal maintainer should <emphasis>always</emphasis> retain
+ If you make an NMU to <literal>DELAYED</literal> and the maintainer updates
- the entry in the changelog file documenting the non-maintainer upload -- and of
+ his package before the delay expires, your upload will be rejected because a
- course, also keep the changes.  If you revert some of the changes, please
+ newer version is already available in the archive.
- reopen the relevant bug reports.
+ Ideally, the maintainer will take care to include your proposed changes (or
+ at least a solution for the problems they address) in that upload.
  </para>
  </section>
- <section id="nmu-build">
+ <section id="nmu-maintainer">
- <title>Building source NMUs</title>
+ <title>NMUs from the maintainer's point of view</title>
  <para>
- Source NMU packages are built normally.  Pick a distribution using the same
+ When someone NMUs your package, this means they want to help you to keep it in
- rules as found in <xref linkend="distribution"/> , follow the other
+ good shape.  This gives users fixed packages faster.  You
- instructions in <xref linkend="upload"/> .
+ can consider asking the NMUer to become a co-maintainer of the package.
+ Receiving an NMU on a package is not a bad
+ thing; it just means that the package is interesting enough for other people to
+ work on it.
  </para>
  <para>
- Make sure you do <emphasis>not</emphasis> change the value of the maintainer in
+ To acknowledge an NMU, include its changes and changelog entry in your next
- the <filename>debian/control</filename> file.  Your name as given in the NMU
+ maintainer upload.  If you do not acknowledge the NMU by including the
- entry of the <filename>debian/changelog</filename> file will be used for
+ NMU changelog entry in your changelog, the bugs will remain closed in the
- signing the changes file.
+ BTS but will be listed as affecting your maintainer version of the package.
  </para>
  </section>
- <section id="ack-nmu">
+ <section id="nmu-binnmu">
- <title>Acknowledging an NMU</title>
+ <title>Source NMUs vs Binary-only NMUs (binNMUs)</title>
+ <para>
+ The full name of an NMU is <emphasis>source NMU</emphasis>.  There is also
+ another type, namely the <emphasis>binary-only NMU</emphasis>, or
+ <emphasis>binNMU</emphasis>.  A binNMU is also a package upload by someone
+ other than the package's maintainer.  However, it is a binary-only upload.
+ </para>
  <para>
- If one of your packages has been NMU'ed, you have to incorporate the changes in
+ When a library (or other dependency) is updated, the packages using it may need
- your copy of the sources.  This is easy, you just have to apply the patch that
+ to be rebuilt.  Since no changes to the source are needed, the same source
- has been sent to you.  Once this is done, you have to close the bugs that have
+ package is used.
- been tagged fixed by the NMU.  The easiest way is to use the
- <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
+ BinNMUs are usually triggered on the buildds by wanna-build.
- attack against the maintainer.  It is a proof that someone cares enough about
+ An entry is added to <filename>debian/changelog</filename>,
- the package that they were willing to help you in your work, so you should be
+ explaining why the upload was needed and increasing the version number as
- thankful.  You may also want to ask them if they would be interested in helping
+ described in <xref linkend="binary-only-nmu"/>.
- you on a more frequent basis as co-maintainer or backup maintainer (see <xref
+ This entry should not be included in the next upload.
- 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
+ Buildds upload packages for their architecture to the archive as binary-only
- to see if it has been orphaned.  The current list of orphaned packages which
+ uploads.  Strictly speaking, these are binNMUs.  However, they are not normally
- haven't had their maintainer set correctly is available at <ulink
+ called NMU, and they don't add an entry to <filename>debian/changelog</filename>.
- url="&url-debian-qa-orphaned;"></ulink>.  If you perform an NMU on an
- improperly orphaned package, please set the maintainer to <literal>Debian QA Group
- &lt;packages@qa.debian.org&gt;</literal>.
  </para>
  </section>
- <section id="nmu-who">
+ <section id="nmu-qa-upload">
- <title>Who can do an NMU</title>
+ <title>NMUs vs QA uploads</title>
  <para>
- Only official, registered Debian Developers can do binary or source NMUs.  A
+ NMUs are uploads of packages by somebody else than their assigned maintainer.
- Debian Developer is someone who has their key in the Debian key ring.
+ There is
- Non-developers, however, are encouraged to download the source package and
+ another type of upload where the uploaded package is not yours: QA uploads. QA
- start hacking on it to fix problems; however, rather than doing an NMU, they
+ uploads are uploads of orphaned packages.
- 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">
- <title>Terminology</title>
  <para>
- There are two new terms used throughout this section: ``binary-only NMU'' and
+ QA uploads are very much like normal maintainer uploads: they may fix anything,
- ``source NMU''.  These terms are used with specific technical meaning
+ even minor issues; the version numbering is normal, and there is no need to use
- throughout this document.  Both binary-only and source NMUs are similar, since
+ a delayed upload.  The difference is that you are not listed as the <literal>Maintainer</literal>
- they involve an upload of a package by a developer who is not the official
+ or <literal>Uploader</literal> for the package.  Also, the changelog entry of a QA upload has a
- maintainer of that package.  That is why it's a
+ special first line:
- <literal>non-maintainer</literal> upload.
  </para>
+ <screen>
+  * QA upload.
+ </screen>
  <para>
- A source NMU is an upload of a package by a developer who is not the official
+ If you want to do an NMU, and it seems that the maintainer is not active, it is
- maintainer, for the purposes of fixing a bug in the package.  Source NMUs
+ wise to check if the package is orphaned
- always involves changes to the source (even if it is just a change to
+ (this information is displayed on the package's Package Tracking System page).
- <filename>debian/changelog</filename>).  This can be either a change to the
+ When doing the first QA upload to an
- upstream source, or a change to the Debian bits of the source.  Note, however,
+ orphaned package, the maintainer should be set to <literal>Debian QA Group
- that source NMUs may also include architecture-dependent packages, as well as
+ &lt;packages@qa.debian.org&gt;</literal>.  Orphaned packages which did
- an updated Debian diff.
+ not yet have a QA upload still have their old maintainer set.  There is a list
+ of them at <ulink url="&url-orphaned-not-qa;"/>.
  </para>
  <para>
- A binary-only NMU is a recompilation and upload of a binary package for a given
+ Instead of doing a QA upload, you can also consider adopting the package by
- architecture.  As such, it is usually part of a porting effort.  A binary-only
+ making yourself the maintainer.  You don't need permission from anybody to
- NMU is a non-maintainer uploaded binary version of a package, with no source
+ adopt an orphaned package, you can just set yourself as maintainer and upload
- changes required.  There are many cases where porters must fix problems in the
+ the new version (see <xref linkend="adopting"/>).
- source in order to get them to compile for their target architecture; that
- would be considered a source NMU rather than a binary-only NMU.  As you can
- see, we don't distinguish in terminology between porter NMUs and non-porter
- NMUs.
  </para>
+ </section>
+ <section id="nmu-team-upload">
+ <title>NMUs vs team uploads</title>
  <para>
- Both classes of NMUs, source and binary-only, can be lumped under the term
+ Sometimes you are fixing and/or updating a package because you are member of a
- ``NMU''.  However, this often leads to confusion, since most people think
+ packaging team (which uses a mailing list as <literal>Maintainer</literal> or <literal>Uploader</literal>, see <xref
- ``source NMU'' when they think ``NMU''.  So it's best to be careful: always use
+ linkend="collaborative-maint"/>) but you don't want to add yourself to <literal>Uploaders</literal>
- ``binary NMU'' or ``binNMU'' for binary-only NMUs.
+ 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 <literal>Maintainer</literal> or <literal>Uploader</literal>. In that case, you should
+ start your changelog entry with the following line:
  </para>
+ <screen>
+  * Team upload.
+ </screen>
  </section>
  </section>
-Line 2098 
 Collaborative maintenance is a term desc
+Line 2221 
 Collaborative maintenance is a term desc
  maintenance duties by several people.  This collaboration is almost always a
  good idea, since it generally results in higher quality and faster bug fix
  turnaround times.  It is strongly recommended that packages with a priority of
- <literal>Standard</literal> or which are part of the base set have
+ <literal>standard</literal> or which are part of the base set have
  co-maintainers.
  </para>
  <para>
-Line 2118 
 easy:
+Line 2241 
 easy:
  <para>
  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
+ such as <literal>CVS</literal> or <literal>Subversion</literal>.  Alioth (see
- <xref linkend="alioth"/> ) provides such tools, amongst others.
+ <xref linkend="alioth"/>) provides such tools, amongst others.
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
-Line 2134 
 Uploaders: John Buzz &lt;jbuzz@debian.or
+Line 2257 
 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 2142 
 should subscribe themselves to the appro
+Line 2265 
 should subscribe themselves to the appro
  <para>
  Another form of collaborative maintenance is team maintenance, which is
  recommended if you maintain several packages with the same group of developers.
- In that case, the Maintainer and Uploaders field of each package must be
+ In that case, the <literal>Maintainer</literal> and <literal>Uploaders</literal> field of each package must be
  managed with care.  It is recommended to choose between one of the two
  following schemes:
  </para>
  <orderedlist numeration="arabic">
  <listitem>
  <para>
- Put the team member mainly responsible for the package in the Maintainer field.
+ Put the team member mainly responsible for the package in the <literal>Maintainer</literal> field.
- In the Uploaders, put the mailing list address, and the team members who care
+ In the <literal>Uploaders</literal>, put the mailing list address, and the team members who care
  for the package.
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
- Put the mailing list address in the Maintainer field.  In the Uploaders field,
+ Put the mailing list address in the <literal>Maintainer</literal> field.  In the <literal>Uploaders</literal> field,
  put the team members who care for the package.  In this case, you must make
  sure the mailing list accept bug reports without any human interaction (like
  moderation for non-subscribers).
  </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
+ <literal>Uploaders</literal> 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 <literal>Uploaders</literal> field just because they are
+ uploading the package once, they can do a “Team upload” (see <xref
+ linkend="nmu-team-upload"/>). Conversely, it is a bad idea to keep a
+ package with only the mailing list address as a <literal>Maintainer</literal> and no
+ <literal>Uploaders</literal>.
  </para>
  </section>
-Line 2183 
 after they have undergone some degree of
+Line 2312 
 after they have undergone some degree of
  <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 <literal>testing
+ release-critical bugs at the time they're installed into <literal>testing</literal>.
- <literal>.  This way, <literal>testing</literal> should always be close to
+ This way, <literal>testing</literal> should always be close to
  being a release candidate.  Please see below for details.
  </para>
  </section>
-Line 2210 
 The package must have been available in
+Line 2339 
 The package must have been available in
  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 <literal>testing</literal> transition is taken into account.  Those
  delays may be doubled during a freeze, or <literal>testing</literal>
  transitions may be switched off altogether;
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <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 <literal>unstable</literal>.  <xref linkend="madison"/> may be of interest
+ in <literal>unstable</literal>. <link linkend="dak-ls">dak ls</link> may be of interest
  to check that information;
  </para>
  </listitem>
-Line 2239 
 It must not break any dependency of a pa
+Line 2368 
 It must not break any dependency of a pa
  The packages on which it depends must either be available in
  <literal>testing</literal> or they must be accepted into
  <literal>testing</literal> at the same time (and they will be if they fulfill
- all the necessary criteria);
+ all the necessary criteria).
  </para>
  </listitem>
  </itemizedlist>
-Line 2272 
 url="http://release.debian.org/migration
+Line 2401 
 url="http://release.debian.org/migration
  shows build dependencies which are not considered by britney.
  </para>
  <section id="outdated">
- <title>out-of-date</title>
+ <title>Out-of-date</title>
  <para>
  <!-- FIXME: better rename this file than document rampant professionalism? -->
  For the <literal>testing</literal> migration script, outdated means: There are
  different versions in <literal>unstable</literal> for the release architectures
  (except for the architectures in fuckedarches; fuckedarches is a list of
  architectures that don't keep up (in <filename>update_out.py</filename>), but
  currently, it's empty).  outdated has nothing whatsoever to do with the
  architectures this package has in <literal>testing</literal>.
  </para>
  <para>
-Line 2309 
 Consider this example:
+Line 2438 
 Consider this example:
  </tgroup>
  </informaltable>
  <para>
- The package is out of date on alpha in <literal>unstable</literal>, and will
+ The package is out of date on <literal>alpha</literal> in <literal>unstable</literal>, and will
- not go to <literal>testing. Removing the package would not help at all, the
+ not go to <literal>testing</literal>. Removing the package would not help at all, the
  package is still out of date on <literal>alpha</literal>, and will not
- propagate to testing.
+ propagate to <literal>testing</literal>.
  </para>
  <para>
  However, if ftp-master removes a package in <literal>unstable</literal> (here
-Line 2346 
 on <literal>arm</literal>):
+Line 2475 
 on <literal>arm</literal>):
  </informaltable>
  <para>
  In this case, the package is up to date on all release architectures in
  <literal>unstable</literal> (and the extra <literal>hurd-i386</literal>
  doesn't matter, as it's not a release architecture).
  </para>
  <para>
-Line 2366 
 with the new version of <literal>b</lite
+Line 2495 
 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 <literal>testing
+ Of course, there is another reason to remove a package from <literal>testing</literal>:
- </literal>: It's just too buggy (and having a single RC-bug is enough to be
+ It's just too buggy (and having a single RC-bug is enough to be
  in this state).
  </para>
  <para>
-Line 2378 
 will automatically be removed.
+Line 2507 
 will automatically be removed.
  </section>
  <section id="circular">
- <title>circular dependencies</title>
+ <title>Circular dependencies</title>
  <para>
  A situation which is not handled very well by britney is if package
  <literal>a</literal> depends on the new version of package
-Line 2422 
 happens to one of your packages.
+Line 2551 
 happens to one of your packages.
  </section>
  <section id="s5.13.2.4">
- <title>influence of package in testing</title>
+ <title>Influence of package in testing</title>
  <para>
- Generally, there is nothing that the status of a package in <literal>testing
+ Generally, there is nothing that the status of a package in <literal>testing</literal>
- </literal> means for transition of the next version from <literal>unstable
+ means for transition of the next version from <literal>unstable</literal>
- </literal> to <literal>testing</literal>, with two exceptions:
+ 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 <literal>
+ RC-buggy.  The second exception is if the version of the package in
- testing</literal> is out of sync on the different arches: Then any arch might
+ <literal>testing</literal> is out of sync on the different arches: Then any arch might
  just upgrade to the version of the source package; however, this can happen
  only if the package was previously forced through, the arch is in fuckedarches,
- or there was no binary package of that arch present in <literal>unstable
+ or there was no binary package of that arch present in <literal>unstable</literal>
- </literal> at all during the <literal>testing</literal> migration.
+ at all during the <literal>testing</literal> migration.
  </para>
  <para>
- In summary this means: The only influence that a package being in <literal>
+ In summary this means: The only influence that a package being in
- testing</literal> has on a new version of the same package is that the new
+ <literal>testing</literal> has on a new version of the same package is that the new
  version might go in easier.
  </para>
  </section>
  <section id="details">
- <title>details</title>
+ <title>Details</title>
  <para>
  If you are interested in details, this is how britney works:
  </para>
-Line 2457 
 part of britney.) (There is a similar th
+Line 2586 
 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 <literal>testing
+ Now, the more complex part happens: Britney tries to update <literal>testing</literal>
- </literal> with the valid candidates. For that, britney tries to add each
+ with the valid candidates. For that, britney tries to add each
  valid candidate to the testing distribution. If the number of uninstallable
  packages in <literal>testing</literal> doesn't increase, the package is
  accepted. From that point on, the accepted package is considered to be part
-Line 2471 
 If you want to see more details, you can
+Line 2600 
 If you want to see more details, you can
  <filename>merkel:/org/&ftp-debian-org;/testing/update_out/</filename> (or
  in <filename>merkel:~aba/testing/update_out</filename> to see a setup with
  a smaller packages file).  Via web, it's at <ulink
- url="http://&ftp-master-host;/testing/update_out_code/"></ulink>
+ url="http://&ftp-master-host;/testing/update_out_code/"></ulink>.
  </para>
  <para>
  The hints are available via <ulink
-Line 2484 
 url="http://&ftp-master-host;/testing/hi
+Line 2613 
 url="http://&ftp-master-host;/testing/hi
  <section id="t-p-u">
  <title>Direct updates to testing</title>
  <para>
  The <literal>testing</literal> distribution is fed with packages from
  <literal>unstable</literal> according to the rules explained above.  However,
- in some cases, it is necessary to upload packages built only for <literal>
+ in some cases, it is necessary to upload packages built only for
- testing</literal>.  For that, you may want to upload to <literal>
+ <literal>testing</literal>.  For that, you may want to upload to
- testing-proposed-updates</literal>.
+ <literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal>.
  </para>
  <para>
  Keep in mind that packages uploaded there are not automatically processed, they
-Line 2500 
 give on &email-debian-devel-announce;.
+Line 2629 
 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 <literal>unstable
+ (for example because you have a newer development version in <literal>unstable</literal>),
- </literal>), you may use this facility, but it is recommended that you ask for
+ you may use this facility, but it is recommended that you ask for
  authorization from the release manager first.  Even if a package is frozen,
  updates through <literal>unstable</literal> are possible, if the upload via
  <literal>unstable</literal> does not pull in any new dependencies.
  </para>
  <para>
  Version numbers are usually selected by adding the codename of the
  <literal>testing</literal> distribution and a running number, like
- <literal>1.2sarge1</literal> for the first upload through
+ <literal>1.2squeeze1</literal> for the first upload through
  <literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal> of package version
  <literal>1.2</literal>.
  </para>
  <para>
-Line 2520 
 Please make sure you didn't miss any of
+Line 2649 
 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 <literal>
+ <literal>testing-proposed-updates</literal>, and can't go through
- unstable</literal>;
+ <literal>unstable</literal>;
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
-Line 2574 
 currently, these are <literal>critical</
+Line 2703 
 currently, these are <literal>critical</
  <para>
  Such bugs are presumed to have an impact on the chances that the package will
  be released with the <literal>stable</literal> release of Debian: in general,
  if a package has open release-critical bugs filed on it, it won't get into
- <literal>testing</literal>, and consequently won't be released in <literal>
+ <literal>testing</literal>, and consequently won't be released in
- stable</literal>.
+ <literal>stable</literal>.
  </para>
  <para>
  The <literal>unstable</literal> bug count are all release-critical bugs which
- are marked to apply to <replaceable>package</replaceable>/<replaceable>version
+ are marked to apply to <replaceable>package</replaceable>/<replaceable>version</replaceable>
- </replaceable> combinations that are available in unstable for a release
+ combinations that are available in unstable for a release
  architecture. The <literal>testing</literal> bug count is defined analogously.
  </para>
  </section>
-Line 2593 
 break other packages?</title>
+Line 2722 
 break other packages?</title>
  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 <literal>acmefoo</literal> is installed into <literal>testing</literal>,
- along with its binary packages <literal>acme-foo-bin</literal>, <literal>
+ along with its binary packages <literal>acme-foo-bin</literal>,
- acme-bar-bin</literal>, <literal>libacme-foo1</literal> and <literal>
+ <literal>acme-bar-bin</literal>, <literal>libacme-foo1</literal> and
- libacme-foo-dev</literal>, the old version is removed.
+ <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 <literal>libacme-foo0</literal>.  Removing the old
  <literal>acmefoo</literal> will remove <literal>libacme-foo0</literal>, which
  will break any packages which depend on it.
  </para>

 Legend:



Removed from v.5200
 


changed lines


 
Added in v.8539
 Legend:



Removed from v.5200
 


changed lines


 
Added in v.8539
-Removed from v.5200
+Added in v.8539

	ViewVC Help
Powered by ViewVC 1.1.5