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

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

Parent Directory | Revision Log | View Patch Patch

-revision 7071 by hertzog,
Sun Feb 14 17:46:38 2010 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 <literal>ITP:
  <replaceable>foo</replaceable> -- <replaceable>short
  description</replaceable></literal>, substituting the name of the new
  package for <replaceable>foo</replaceable>.
  The severity of the bug report must be set to <literal>wishlist</literal>.
  Please send a copy to &email-debian-devel; by using the X-Debbugs-CC
  header (don't use CC:, because that way the message's subject won't
  indicate the bug number). If you are packaging so many new packages (>10)
- that notifying the mailing list in seperate messages is too disruptive,
+ that notifying the mailing list in separate messages is too disruptive,
  send a summary after filing the bugs to the debian-devel list instead.
  This will inform the other developers about upcoming packages and will
  allow a review of your description and package name.
 Line 49 
 be automatically closed once the new pac
  </para>
  <para>
  If you think your package needs some explanations for the administrators of the
- NEW package queue, include them in your changelog, send to ftpmaster@debian.org
+ 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 121 
 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 173 
 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 202 
 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 229 
 accompanied by another file that contain
+Line 230 
 accompanied by another file that contain
  </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,bz2,lzma}</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,bz2,lzma}</literal>) and the Debian changes
+ (<filename>.orig.tar.{gz,bz2,lzma}</filename>) and the Debian changes
- (<literal>.diff.gz</literal> for the source format “1.0” or
+ (<filename>.diff.gz</filename> for the source format “1.0” or
- <literal>.debian.tar.{gz,bz2,lzma}</literal> for the source format “3.0 (quilt)”).
+ <filename>.debian.tar.{gz,bz2,lzma}</filename> for the source format “3.0 (quilt)”).
  </para>
  <para>
  With source format “1.0”, whether a package is native or not was determined
-Line 267 
 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,bz2} 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. 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.
-Line 280 
 preserved since they are stored in a tar
+Line 281 
 preserved since they are stored in a tar
  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>,
-Line 289 
 There are several possible values for th
+Line 290 
 There are several possible values for th
  <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 298 
 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> and
  <literal>oldstable</literal> distributions</title>
  <para>
  Uploading to <literal>stable</literal> means that the package will transferred
-Line 358 
 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>
  Uploads to the <literal>oldstable</literal> distributions are possible as
- long as it hasn't been archived. The same rules as for <literal>stable
+ long as it hasn't been archived. The same rules as for <literal>stable</literal>
- </literal> apply.
+ apply.
  </para>
  </section>
-Line 399 
 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
- <ulink url="ftp://&ftp-upload-host;&upload-queue;/README"/> and
+ <ulink url="ftp://&ftp-upload-host;&upload-queue;README"/> and
- the Debian package <xref linkend="dcut"/> .
+ the Debian package <link linkend="dcut">dcut</link>.
  </para>
  </section>
-Line 416 
 the Debian package <xref linkend="dcut"/
+Line 417 
 the Debian package <xref linkend="dcut"/
  <para>
  It is sometimes useful to upload a package immediately, but to want this
  package to arrive in the archive only a few days later. For example,
- when preparing a <link linkend="nmu">Non-maintainer Upload</link>,
+ when preparing a <link linkend="nmu">Non-Maintainer Upload</link>,
  you might want to give the maintainer a few days to react.
  </para>
  <para>
  An upload to the delayed directory keeps the package in
- <ulink url="http://ftp-master.debian.org/deferred.html">
+ <ulink url="http://ftp-master.debian.org/deferred.html">the deferred uploads queue</ulink>.
- 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
 Line 441 
 parameter to put the package into one of
  <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>
 Line 461 
 for European developers.
  Packages can also be uploaded via ssh to
  <literal>&ssh-upload-host;</literal>; files should be put
  <literal>/srv/upload.debian.org/UploadQueue</literal>. This queue does
- not support <xref linkend="delayed-incoming">delayed uploads</xref>.
+ not support <link linkend="delayed-incoming">delayed uploads</link>.
  </para>
  </section>
 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 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 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 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 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 678 
 the right package.  If you don't know wh
  you should ask for help on <link linkend="irc-channels">IRC</link> or
  on &email-debian-devel;.  Please inform the maintainer(s) of the package
  you reassign the bug to, for example by Cc:ing the message that does the
- reassign to <email>packagename@packages.debian.org</email> and explaining
+ 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
 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 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 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 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 850 
 without contacting the team.  Useful inf
  <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 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 875 
 testing, etc.)
  <listitem>
  <para>
  Any information needed for the advisory (see <xref
- linkend="bug-security-advisories"/> )
+ linkend="bug-security-advisories"/>)
  </para>
  </listitem>
  </itemizedlist>
 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 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 1138 
 process. The identifier can be cross-ref
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
  Make sure the <emphasis role="strong">version number</emphasis> 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, 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+etch1</literal>, of course increasing 1 for any subsequent
+ <literal>1:2.4.3-4+lenny1</literal>, of course increasing 1 for any subsequent
  uploads.
  </para>
  </listitem>
 Line 1156 
 Unless the upstream source has been uplo
  role="strong">with full upstream source</emphasis> (<literal>dpkg-buildpackage
  -sa</literal>).  If there has been a previous upload to
  <literal>security.debian.org</literal> with the same upstream version, you may
- upload without upstream source (<literal> dpkg-buildpackage -sd</literal>).
+ upload without upstream source (<literal>dpkg-buildpackage -sd</literal>).
  </para>
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
  Be sure to use the <emphasis role="strong">exact same
- <filename>*.orig.tar.{gz,bz2}</filename></emphasis> as used in the
+ <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>
 Line 1172 
 main archives later.
  Build the package on a <emphasis role="strong">clean system</emphasis> which only
  has packages installed from the distribution you are building for. If you do not
  have such a system yourself, you can use a debian.org machine (see
- <xref linkend="server-machines"/> ) or setup a chroot (see
+ <xref linkend="server-machines"/>) or setup a chroot (see
- <xref linkend="pbuilder"/> and <xref linkend="debootstrap"/> ).
+ <xref linkend="pbuilder"/> and <xref linkend="debootstrap"/>).
  </para>
  </listitem>
  </itemizedlist>
 Line 1183 
 have such a system yourself, you can use
  <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 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
 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,bz2}</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 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 1270 
 If for some reason you want to completel
  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.
- The bug title should be in the form <literal>RM: <replaceable>package
+ The bug title should be in the form <literal>RM: <replaceable>package</replaceable>
- </replaceable> <replaceable>[architecture list]</replaceable> --
+ <replaceable>[architecture list]</replaceable> --
  <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>
+ to these rules when you use it to report a bug against the
- ftp.debian.org</literal> pseudo-package.
+ <literal>ftp.debian.org</literal> pseudo-package.
  </para>
  <para>
 Line 1292 
 pending removal requests.
  </para>
  <para>
- Note that removals can only be done for the <literal>unstable
+ Note that removals can only be done for the <literal>unstable</literal>,
- </literal>, <literal>experimental</literal> and <literal>stable
+ <literal>experimental</literal> and <literal>stable</literal>
- </literal> distribution.  Packages are not removed from
+ 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>unstable</literal> and no package in
- </literal> 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 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>, <command>build-rdeps</command> (in the
  <systemitem role="package">devscripts</systemitem> package) and
  <command>grep-dctrl</command>.  Removal of
 Line 1379 
 rename their software (or you made a mis
  you should follow a two-step process to rename it. In the first
  step, change the <filename>debian/control</filename> file to
  reflect the new name and to replace, provide and conflict with the
- obsolete package name (see the <ulink url="&url-debian-policy;">
+ obsolete package name (see the <ulink url="&url-debian-policy;">Debian
- Debian Policy Manual</ulink> for details).  Please note that you
+ Policy Manual</ulink> for details).  Please note that you
  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>
+ has moved into the archive, file a bug against <literal>ftp.debian.org</literal>
- ftp.debian.org</literal> asking to remove the package with the
+ 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>
 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 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 1487 
 Porting is the act of building Debian pa
  different from the original architecture of the package maintainer's binary
  package.  It is a unique and essential activity.  In fact, porters do most of
  the actual compiling of Debian packages.  For instance, when a maintainer
- uploads a (portable) source packages with binaries for the <literal>i386
+ uploads a (portable) source packages with binaries for the <literal>i386</literal>
- </literal> architecture, it will be built for each of the other architectures,
+ architecture, it will be built for each of the other architectures,
  amounting to &number-of-arches; more builds.
  </para>
  <section id="kind-to-porters">
 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 1541 
 Manual</ulink> for instructions on setti
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
  Don't set architecture to a value other than <literal>all</literal> or
  <literal>any</literal> unless you really mean it.  In too many cases,
  maintainers don't follow the instructions in the <ulink
  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.
 Line 1592 
 standardize on different compilers.
  </listitem>
  <listitem>
  <para>
- Make sure your debian/rules contains separate <literal>binary-arch</literal>
+ Make sure your <filename>debian/rules</filename> contains separate <literal>binary-arch</literal>
  and <literal>binary-indep</literal> targets, as the Debian Policy Manual
  requires.  Make sure that both targets work independently, that is, that you
  can call the target without having called the other before.  To test this,
  try to run <command>dpkg-buildpackage -B</command>.
 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 <literal>binary-arch</literal> target in <filename>debian/rules
+ using the <literal>binary-arch</literal> target in
- </filename>.
+ <filename>debian/rules</filename>.
  </para>
  <para>
  If you are working on a Debian machine for your porting efforts and you need to
 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>dak</command> refuses to install new packages if they don't have a
 Line 1648 
 version number greater than the currentl
  You have to make sure that your binary-only NMU doesn't render the package
  uninstallable.  This could happen when a source package generates
  arch-dependent and arch-independent packages that have inter-dependencies
- generated using dpkg's substitution variable <literal>$(Source-Version)
+ generated using dpkg's substitution variable <literal>$(Source-Version)</literal>.
- </literal>.
  </para>
  <para>
  Despite the required modification of the changelog, these are called
-Line 1665 
 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 <literal>
+ appended to the package version number, following the form
- b<replaceable>number</replaceable></literal>.
+ <literal>b<replaceable>number</replaceable></literal>.
  For instance, if the latest version you are recompiling against was version
  <literal>2.9-3</literal>, your binary-only NMU should carry a version of
- <literal>2.9-3+b1</literal>.  If the latest version was <literal>3.4+b1
+ <literal>2.9-3+b1</literal>.  If the latest version was <literal>3.4+b1</literal>
- </literal> (i.e, a native package with a previous recompilation NMU), your
+ (i.e, a native package with a previous recompilation NMU), your
- binary-only NMU should have a version number of <literal>3.4+b2</literal>.
+ binary-only NMU should have a version number of <literal>3.4+b2</literal>.<footnote><para>
- <footnote><para> In the past, such NMUs used the third-level number on the
+ In the past, such NMUs used the third-level number on the
  Debian part of the revision to denote their recompilation-only status;
  however, this syntax was ambiguous with native packages and did not allow
  proper ordering of recompile-only NMUs, source NMUs, and security NMUs on
-Line 1690 
 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 1698 
 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 1706 
 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 <literal>serious</literal> or greater.  This
  ensures that a single source package can be used to compile every supported
  Debian architecture by release time.  It is very important that we have one
  version of the binary and source package for all architectures in order to
  comply with many licenses.
-Line 1760 
 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>
-Line 1769 
 linkend="tools-porting"/> .
+Line 1768 
 linkend="tools-porting"/> .
  <para>
  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 build daemons running the <systemitem role="package">buildd
+ conjunction with build daemons running the <systemitem role="package">buildd</systemitem>
- </systemitem> program. <literal>Build daemons</literal> are ``slave'' hosts
+ program. <literal>Build daemons</literal> are ``slave'' hosts
- which contact the central <systemitem role="package"> wanna-build</systemitem>
+ which contact the central <systemitem role="package">wanna-build</systemitem>
  system to receive a list of packages that need to be built.
  </para>
  <para>
  <systemitem role="package">wanna-build</systemitem> is not yet available as a
  package; however, all Debian porting efforts are using it for automated
  package building.  The tool used to do the actual package builds, <systemitem
  role="package">sbuild</systemitem> is available as a package, see its
- description in <xref linkend="sbuild"/> .  Please note that the packaged
+ description in <xref linkend="sbuild"/>.  Please note that the packaged
  version is not the same as the one used on build daemons, but it is close
  enough to reproduce problems.
  </para>
  <para>
- Most of the data produced by <systemitem role="package">wanna-build
+ Most of the data produced by <systemitem role="package">wanna-build</systemitem>
- </systemitem> which is generally useful to porters is available on the
+ which is generally useful to porters is available on the
  web at <ulink url="&url-buildd;"></ulink>.  This data includes nightly
  updated statistics, queueing information and logs for build attempts.
  </para>
-Line 1845 
 fail also, and indicate this to a human
+Line 1844 
 fail also, and indicate this to a human
  <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 url="&url-buildd-p-a-s;"/>;
  please see the top of the file for whom to contact for changes.
-Line 1854 
 please see the top of the file for whom
+Line 1853 
 please see the top of the file for whom
  </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 1928 
 is given an opportunity to upload a fix
+Line 1927 
 is given an opportunity to upload a fix
  When doing an NMU, you must first make sure that your intention to NMU is
  clear.  Then, you must send a patch with the differences between the
  current package and your proposed NMU to the BTS. The
- <literal>nmudiff</literal> script in the <literal>devscripts</literal> package
+ <command>nmudiff</command> script in the <systemitem role="package">devscripts</systemitem> package
  might be helpful.
  </para>
  <para>
-Line 1937 
 practices that the maintainer might be u
+Line 1936 
 practices that the maintainer might be u
  the burden of getting your changes integrated back in the normal package
  workflow and thus increases the possibilities that that will happen. A good
  place where to look for for possible package-specific practices is
- <ulink url="&url-debian-policy;ch-source.html#s-readmesource"><literal>debian/README.source</literal></ulink>.
+ <ulink url="&url-debian-policy;ch-source.html#s-readmesource"><filename>debian/README.source</filename></ulink>.
  </para>
  <para>
  Unless you have an excellent reason not to do so, you must then give some time
-Line 1995 
 defend the wisdom of any NMU you perform
+Line 1994 
 defend the wisdom of any NMU you perform
  </section>
  <section id="nmu-changelog">
- <title>NMUs and debian/changelog</title>
+ <title>NMUs and <filename>debian/changelog</filename></title>
  <para>
  Just like any other (source) upload, NMUs must add an entry to
- <literal>debian/changelog</literal>, telling what has changed with this
+ <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>
-Line 2009 
 upload.  The first line of this entry mu
+Line 2008 
 upload.  The first line of this entry mu
  The way to version NMUs differs for native and non-native packages.
  </para>
  <para>
- If the package is a native package (without a debian revision in the version number),
+ 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>.
-Line 2020 
 version <literal>1.5+nmu1</literal>.
+Line 2019 
 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
+ to the Debian revision part of the version number (the portion after the last
- hyphen). This extra number must start at 1.  For example,
+ 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
+ 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>.  .
+ 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
-Line 2054 
 should be used, where <replaceable>X</re
+Line 2053 
 should be used, where <replaceable>X</re
  When the release number is not yet known (often the case for
  <literal>testing</literal>, at the beginning of release cycles), the lowest
  release number higher than the last stable release number must be used.  For
- example, while Etch (Debian 4.0) is stable, a security NMU to stable for a
+ 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+deb40u1</literal>, whereas a security NMU to Lenny would get
+ <literal>1.5-3+deb50u1</literal>, whereas a security NMU to Squeeze would get
- version <literal>1.5-3+deb50u1</literal>. After the release of Lenny, security
+ version <literal>1.5-3+deb60u1</literal>. After the release of Squeeze, security
  uploads to the <literal>testing</literal> distribution will be versioned
- <literal>+deb51uZ</literal>, until it is known whether that release will be
+ <literal>+deb61uZ</literal>, until it is known whether that release will be
- Debian 5.1 or Debian 6.0 (if that becomes the case, uploads will be versioned
+ Debian 6.1 or Debian 7.0 (if that becomes the case, uploads will be versioned
- as <literal>+deb60uZ</literal>.
+ as <literal>+deb70uZ</literal>).
  </para>
  </section>
-Line 2138 
 package is used.
+Line 2137 
 package is used.
  <para>
  BinNMUs are usually triggered on the buildds by wanna-build.
- An entry is added to debian/changelog,
+ An entry is added to <filename>debian/changelog</filename>,
  explaining why the upload was needed and increasing the version number as
  described in <xref linkend="binary-only-nmu"/>.
  This entry should not be included in the next upload.
-Line 2147 
 This entry should not be included in the
+Line 2146 
 This entry should not be included in the
  <para>
  Buildds upload packages for their architecture to the archive as binary-only
  uploads.  Strictly speaking, these are binNMUs.  However, they are not normally
- called NMU, and they don't add an entry to debian/changelog.
+ called NMU, and they don't add an entry to <filename>debian/changelog</filename>.
  </para>
  </section>
-Line 2165 
 uploads are uploads of orphaned packages
+Line 2164 
 uploads are uploads of orphaned packages
  <para>
  QA uploads are very much like normal maintainer uploads: they may fix anything,
  even minor issues; the version numbering is normal, and there is no need to use
- a delayed upload.  The difference is that you are not listed as the Maintainer
+ a delayed upload.  The difference is that you are not listed as the <literal>Maintainer</literal>
- or Uploader for the package.  Also, the changelog entry of a QA upload has a
+ or <literal>Uploader</literal> for the package.  Also, the changelog entry of a QA upload has a
  special first line:
  </para>
-Line 2194 
 the new version (see <xref linkend="adop
+Line 2193 
 the new version (see <xref linkend="adop
  </section>
+ <section id="nmu-team-upload">
+ <title>NMUs vs team uploads</title>
+ <para>
+ Sometimes you are fixing and/or updating a package because you are member of a
+ packaging team (which uses a mailing list as <literal>Maintainer</literal> or <literal>Uploader</literal>, see <xref
+ linkend="collaborative-maint"/>) but you don't want to add yourself to <literal>Uploaders</literal>
+ 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>
  <section id="collaborative-maint">
-Line 2203 
 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 2223 
 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 2239 
 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 2247 
 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 2288 
 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 2315 
 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="dak-ls"/> 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 2344 
 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 2377 
 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 2414 
 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</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 2451 
 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 2471 
 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 2483 
 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 2527 
 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 2562 
 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 2576 
 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 2589 
 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 2605 
 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 2625 
 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 2679 
 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 2698 
 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.7071
 


changed lines


 
Added in v.8539
 Legend:



Removed from v.7071
 


changed lines


 
Added in v.8539
-Removed from v.7071
+Added in v.8539

	ViewVC Help
Powered by ViewVC 1.1.5