Search Results: "ed"

30 May 2025

Russell Coker: Machine Learning Security

I just read an interesting blog post about ML security recommended by Bruce Schneier [1]. This approach of having 2 AI systems where one processes user input and the second performs actions on quarantined data is good and solves some real problems. But I think the bigger issue is the need to do this. Why not have a multi stage approach, instead of a single user input to do everything (the example given is Can you send Bob the document he requested in our last meeting? Bob s email and the document he asked for are in the meeting notes file ) you could have get Bob s email address from the meeting notes file followed by create a new email to that address and find the document etc. A major problem with many plans for ML systems is that they are based around automating relatively simple tasks. The example of sending an email based on meeting notes is a trivial task that s done many times a day but for which expressing it verbally isn t much faster than doing it the usual way. The usual way of doing such things (manually finding the email address from the meeting notes etc) can be accelerated without ML by having a recent documents access method that gets the notes, having the email address be a hot link to the email program (IE wordprocessor or note taking program being able to call the MUA), having a put all data objects of type X into the clipboard (where X can be email address, URL, filename, or whatever), and maybe optimising the MUA UI. The problems that people are talking about solving via ML and treating everything as text to be arbitrarily parsed can in many cases by solved by having the programs dealing with the data know what they have and have support for calling system services accordingly. The blog post suggests a problem of user fatigue from asking the user to confirm all actions, that is a real concern if the system is going to automate everything such that the user gives a verbal description of the problem and then says yes many times to confirm it. But if the user is at every step of the way pushing the process take this email address attach this file it won t be a series of yes operations with a risk of saying yes once too often. I think that one thing that should be investigated is better integration between services to allow working live on data. If in an online meeting someone says I ll work on task A please send me an email at the end of the meeting with all issues related to it then you should be able to click on their email address in the meeting software to bring up the MUA to send a message and then just paste stuff in. The user could then not immediately send the message and clicking on the email address again would bring up the message in progress to allow adding to it (the behaviour of most MUAs of creating a new message for every click on a mailto:// URL is usually not what you desire). In this example you could of course use ALT-TAB or other methods to switch windows to the email, but imagine the situation of having 5 people in the meeting who are to be emailed about different things and that wouldn t scale. Another thing for the meeting example is that having a text chat for a video conference is a standard feature now and being able to directly message individuals is available in BBB and probably some other online meeting systems. It shouldn t be hard to add a feature to BBB and similar programs to have each user receive an email at the end of the meeting with the contents of every DM chat they were involved in and have everyone in the meeting receive an emailed transcript of the public chat. In conclusion I think that there are real issues with ML security and something like this technology is needed. But for most cases the best option is to just not have ML systems do such things. Also there is significant scope for improving the integration of various existing systems in a non-ML way.

Utkarsh Gupta: FOSS Activites in May 2025

Here s my 68th monthly but brief update about the activities I ve done in the F/L/OSS world.

Debian
This was my 77th month of actively contributing to Debian. I became a DM in late March 2019 and a DD on Christmas 19! \o/ This month I ve just been sort of MIA, mostly because of a combination of the Canonical engineering sprints in Frankfurt, a bit of vacation in Italy, and then being sick. So didn t really get much done in Debian this month.

Ubuntu
This was my 53rd month of actively contributing to Ubuntu. I joined Canonical to work on Ubuntu full-time back in February 2021. Whilst I can t give a full, detailed list of things I did (there s so much and some of it might not be public yet!), here s a quick TL;DR of what I did:

Debian (E)LTS
Debian Long Term Support (LTS) is a project to extend the lifetime of all Debian stable releases to (at least) 5 years. Debian LTS is not handled by the Debian security team, but by a separate group of volunteers and companies interested in making it a success. And Debian Extended LTS (ELTS) is its sister project, extending support to the buster, stretch, and jessie release (+2 years after LTS support). This was my 68th month as a Debian LTS and 55th month as a Debian ELTS paid contributor.
Due to a combination of the Canonical engineering sprints in Frankfurt, a bit of vacation in Italy, and then being sick, I was barely able to do (E)LTS work. So this month, I worked for only 1.00 hours for LTS and 0 hours for ELTS. I did the following things:
  • [LTS] Attended the hourly LTS meeting on IRC. Summary here.

Until next time.
:wq for today.

Reproducible Builds (diffoscope): diffoscope 297 released

The diffoscope maintainers are pleased to announce the release of diffoscope version 297. This version includes the following changes:
[ Will Hollywood ]
* Add a LZMA comparator and tests.
You find out more by visiting the project homepage.

29 May 2025

Dirk Eddelbuettel: #48: r2u Talk Re-Recorded

Welcome to post 48 in the R4 series, and to video 8 in this series. Last week I had the honour of giving the opening talk at the 11eme Rencontres R at the Universit de Mons in Belgium as an invited plenary talk. Big thanks again to Philippe Grosjean and Kathy Huet for the invitation, and for organising a lovely conference. Being the opening talk, we were still sorting out projector issues when I started so I forgot to set a timer, and consequently ran out of time like a newbie. It occured to me that I could simply re-record the talk in front of my slides just as I do for my STAT 447 students. So I sat down this morning and did this, and the video is now online:

The slides are available as well. For questions or other feedback, please consider using the r2u GitHub repo issues section.

This post by Dirk Eddelbuettel originated on his Thinking inside the box blog. If you like this or other open-source work I do, you can now sponsor me at GitHub.

Dirk Eddelbuettel: RcppDate 0.0.6: New Upstream

RcppDate wraps the featureful date library written by Howard Hinnant for use with R. This header-only modern C++ library has been in pretty wide-spread use for a while now, and adds to C++11/C++14/C++17 what will is (with minor modifications) the date library in C++20. The RcppDate package adds no extra R or C++ code and can therefore be a zero-cost dependency for any other project; yet a number of other projects decided to re-vendor it resulting in less-efficient duplication. Oh well. C est la vie. This release syncs with upstream release 3.0.4 made yesterday which contains a few PRs (including one by us) for the clang++-20 changes some of which we already had in release 0.0.5. We also made a routine update to the continuous integration.

Changes in version 0.0.6 (2025-05-29)
  • Updated to upstream version 3.0.4

Courtesy of my CRANberries, there is also a diffstat report for the most recent release. More information is available at the repository or the package page.

This post by Dirk Eddelbuettel originated on his Thinking inside the box blog. If you like this or other open-source work I do, you can sponsor me at GitHub.

Arthur Diniz: Bringing Kubernetes Back to Debian

I ve been part of the Debian Project since 2019, when I attended DebConf held in Curitiba, Brazil. That event sparked my interest in the community, packaging, and how Debian works as a distribution. In the early years of my involvement, I contributed to various teams such as the Python, Golang and Cloud teams, packaging dependencies and maintaining various tools. However, I soon felt the need to focus on packaging software I truly enjoyed, tools I was passionate about using and maintaining. That s when I turned my attention to Kubernetes within Debian.

A Broken Ecosystem The Kubernetes packaging situation in Debian had been problematic for some time. Given its large codebase and complex dependency tree, the initial packaging approach involved vendorizing all dependencies. While this allowed a somewhat functional package to be published, it introduced several long-term issues, especially security concerns. Vendorized packages bundle third-party dependencies directly into the source tarball. When vulnerabilities arise in those dependencies, it becomes difficult for Debian s security team to patch and rebuild affected packages system-wide. This approach broke Debian s best practices, and it eventually led to the abandonment of the Kubernetes source package, which had stalled at version 1.20.5. Due to this abandonment, critical bugs emerged and the package was removed from Debian s testing channel, as we can see in the package tracker.

New Debian Kubernetes Team Around this time, I became a Debian Maintainer (DM), with permissions to upload certain packages. I saw an opportunity to both contribute more deeply to Debian and to fix Kubernetes packaging. In early 2024, just before DebConf Busan in South Korea, I founded the Debian Kubernetes Team. The mission of the team was to repackage Kubernetes in a maintainable, security-conscious, and Debian-compliant way. At DebConf, I shared our progress with the broader community and received great feedback and more visibility, along with people interested in contributing to the team. Our first tasks was to migrate existing Kubernetes-related tools such as kubectx, kubernetes-split-yaml and kubetail into a dedicated namespace on Salsa, Debian s GitLab instance. Many of these tools were stored across different teams (like the Go team), and consolidating them helped us organize development and focus our efforts.

De-vendorizing Kubernetes Our main goal was to un-vendorize Kubernetes and bring it up-to-date with upstream releases. This meant:
  • Removing the vendor directory and all embedded third-party code.
  • Trimming the build scope to focus solely on building kubectl, Kubernetes CLI.
  • Using Files-Excluded in debian/copyright to cleanly drop unneeded files during source imports.
  • Rebuilding the dependency tree, ensuring all Go modules were separately packaged in Debian.
We used uscan, a standard Debian packaging tool that fetches upstream tarballs and prepares them accordingly. The Files-Excluded directive in our debian/copyright file instructed uscan to automatically remove unnecessary files during the repackaging process:
$ uscan
Newest version of kubernetes on remote site is 1.32.3, specified download version is 1.32.3
Successfully repacked ../v1.32.3 as ../kubernetes_1.32.3+ds.orig.tar.gz, deleting 30616 files from it.
The results were dramatic. By comparing the original upstream tarball with our repackaged version, we can see that our approach reduced the tarball size by over 75%:
$ du -h upstream-v1.32.3.tar.gz kubernetes_1.32.3+ds.orig.tar.gz
14M	upstream-v1.32.3.tar.gz
3.2M	kubernetes_1.32.3+ds.orig.tar.gz
This significant reduction wasn t just about saving space. By removing over 30,000 files, we simplified the package, making it more maintainable. Each dependency could now be properly tracked, updated, and patched independently, resolving the security concerns that had plagued the previous packaging approach.

Dependency Graph To give you an idea of the complexity involved in packaging Kubernetes for Debian, the image below is a dependency graph generated with debtree, visualizing all the Go modules and other dependencies required to build the kubectl binary. kubectl-depgraph This web of nodes and edges represents every module and its relationship during the compilation process of kubectl. Each box is a Debian package, and the lines connecting them show how deeply intertwined the ecosystem is. What might look like a mess of blue spaghetti is actually a clear demonstration of the vast and interconnected upstream world that tools like kubectl rely on. But more importantly, this graph is a testament to the effort that went into making kubectl build entirely using Debian-packaged dependencies only, no vendoring, no downloading from the internet, no proprietary blobs.

Upstream Version 1.32.3 and Beyond After nearly two years of work, we successfully uploaded version 1.32.3+ds of kubectl to Debian unstable. kubernetes/-/merge_requests/1 The new package also includes:
  • Zsh, Fish, and Bash completions installed automatically
  • Man pages and metadata for improved discoverability
  • Full integration with kind and docker for testing purposes

Integration Testing with Autopkgtest To ensure the reliability of kubectl in real-world scenarios, we developed a new autopkgtest suite that runs integration tests using real Kubernetes clusters created via Kind. Autopkgtest is a Debian tool used to run automated tests on binary packages. These tests are executed after the package is built but before it s accepted into the Debian archive, helping catch regressions and integration issues early in the packaging pipeline. Our test workflow validates kubectl by performing the following steps:
  • Installing Kind and Docker as test dependencies.
  • Spinning up two local Kubernetes clusters.
  • Switching between cluster contexts to ensure multi-cluster support.
  • Deploying and scaling a sample nginx application using kubectl.
  • Cleaning up the entire test environment to avoid side effects.
  • debian/tests/kubectl.sh

Popcon: Measuring Adoption To measure real-world usage, we rely on data from Debian s popularity contest (popcon), which gives insight into how many users have each binary installed. popcon-graph popcon-table Here s what the data tells us:
  • kubectl (new binary): Already installed on 2,124 systems.
  • golang-k8s-kubectl-dev: This is the Go development package (a library), useful for other packages and developers who want to interact with Kubernetes programmatically.
  • kubernetes-client: The legacy package that kubectl is replacing. We expect this number to decrease in future releases as more systems transition to the new package.
Although the popcon data shows activity for kubectl before the official Debian upload date, it s important to note that those numbers represent users who had it installed from upstream source-lists, not from the Debian repositories. This distinction underscores a demand that existed even before the package was available in Debian proper, and it validates the importance of bringing it into the archive.
Also worth mentioning: this number is not the real total number of installations, since users can choose not to participate in the popularity contest. So the actual adoption is likely higher than what popcon reflects.

Community and Documentation The team also maintains a dedicated wiki page which documents:
  • Maintained tools and packages
  • Contribution guidelines
  • Our roadmap for the upcoming Debian releases
https://debian-kubernetes.org

Looking Ahead to Debian 13 (Trixie) The next stable release of Debian will ship with kubectl version 1.32.3, built from a clean, de-vendorized source. This version includes nearly all the latest upstream features, and will be the first time in years that Debian users can rely on an up-to-date, policy-compliant kubectl directly from the archive. By comparing with upstream, our Debian package even delivers more out of the box, including shell completions, which the upstream still requires users to generate manually. In 2025, the Debian Kubernetes team will continue expanding our packaging efforts for the Kubernetes ecosystem. Our roadmap includes:
  • kubelet: The primary node agent that runs on each node. This will enable Debian users to create fully functional Kubernetes nodes without relying on external packages.
  • kubeadm: A tool for creating Kubernetes clusters. With kubeadm in Debian, users will then be able to bootstrap minimum viable clusters directly from the official repositories.
  • helm: The package manager for Kubernetes that helps manage applications through Kubernetes YAML files defined as charts.
  • kompose: A conversion tool that helps users familiar with docker-compose move to Kubernetes by translating Docker Compose files into Kubernetes resources.

Final Thoughts This journey was only possible thanks to the amazing support of the debian-devel-br community and the collective effort of contributors who stepped up to package missing dependencies, fix bugs, and test new versions. Special thanks to:
  • Carlos Henrique Melara (@charles)
  • Guilherme Puida (@puida)
  • Jo o Pedro Nobrega (@jnpf)
  • Lucas Kanashiro (@kanashiro)
  • Matheus Polkorny (@polkorny)
  • Samuel Henrique (@samueloph)
  • Sergio Cipriano (@cipriano)
  • Sergio Durigan Junior (@sergiodj)
I look forward to continuing this work, bringing more Kubernetes tools into Debian and improving the developer experience for everyone.

Arthur Diniz: Bringing Kubernetes Back to Debian

I ve been part of the Debian Project since 2019, when I attended DebConf held in Curitiba, Brazil. That event sparked my interest in the community, packaging, and how Debian works as a distribution. In the early years of my involvement, I contributed to various teams such as the Python, Golang and Cloud teams, packaging dependencies and maintaining various tools. However, I soon felt the need to focus on packaging software I truly enjoyed, tools I was passionate about using and maintaining. That s when I turned my attention to Kubernetes within Debian.

A Broken Ecosystem The Kubernetes packaging situation in Debian had been problematic for some time. Given its large codebase and complex dependency tree, the initial packaging approach involved vendorizing all dependencies. While this allowed a somewhat functional package to be published, it introduced several long-term issues, especially security concerns. Vendorized packages bundle third-party dependencies directly into the source tarball. When vulnerabilities arise in those dependencies, it becomes difficult for Debian s security team to patch and rebuild affected packages system-wide. This approach broke Debian s best practices, and it eventually led to the abandonment of the Kubernetes source package, which had stalled at version 1.20.5. Due to this abandonment, critical bugs emerged and the package was removed from Debian s testing channel, as we can see in the package tracker.

New Debian Kubernetes Team Around this time, I became a Debian Maintainer (DM), with permissions to upload certain packages. I saw an opportunity to both contribute more deeply to Debian and to fix Kubernetes packaging. In early 2024, just before DebConf Busan in South Korea, I founded the Debian Kubernetes Team. The mission of the team was to repackage Kubernetes in a maintainable, security-conscious, and Debian-compliant way. At DebConf, I shared our progress with the broader community and received great feedback and more visibility, along with people interested in contributing to the team. Our first tasks was to migrate existing Kubernetes-related tools such as kubectx, kubernetes-split-yaml and kubetail into a dedicated namespace on Salsa, Debian s GitLab instance. Many of these tools were stored across different teams (like the Go team), and consolidating them helped us organize development and focus our efforts.

De-vendorizing Kubernetes Our main goal was to un-vendorize Kubernetes and bring it up-to-date with upstream releases. This meant:
  • Removing the vendor directory and all embedded third-party code.
  • Trimming the build scope to focus solely on building kubectl, Kubernetes CLI.
  • Using Files-Excluded in debian/copyright to cleanly drop unneeded files during source imports.
  • Rebuilding the dependency tree, ensuring all Go modules were separately packaged in Debian.
We used uscan, a standard Debian packaging tool that fetches upstream tarballs and prepares them accordingly. The Files-Excluded directive in our debian/copyright file instructed uscan to automatically remove unnecessary files during the repackaging process:
$ uscan
Newest version of kubernetes on remote site is 1.32.3, specified download version is 1.32.3
Successfully repacked ../v1.32.3 as ../kubernetes_1.32.3+ds.orig.tar.gz, deleting 30616 files from it.
The results were dramatic. By comparing the original upstream tarball with our repackaged version, we can see that our approach reduced the tarball size by over 75%:
$ du -h upstream-v1.32.3.tar.gz kubernetes_1.32.3+ds.orig.tar.gz
14M	upstream-v1.32.3.tar.gz
3.2M	kubernetes_1.32.3+ds.orig.tar.gz
This significant reduction wasn t just about saving space. By removing over 30,000 files, we simplified the package, making it more maintainable. Each dependency could now be properly tracked, updated, and patched independently, resolving the security concerns that had plagued the previous packaging approach.

Dependency Graph To give you an idea of the complexity involved in packaging Kubernetes for Debian, the image below is a dependency graph generated with debtree, visualizing all the Go modules and other dependencies required to build the kubectl binary. kubectl-depgraph This web of nodes and edges represents every module and its relationship during the compilation process of kubectl. Each box is a Debian package, and the lines connecting them show how deeply intertwined the ecosystem is. What might look like a mess of blue spaghetti is actually a clear demonstration of the vast and interconnected upstream world that tools like kubectl rely on. But more importantly, this graph is a testament to the effort that went into making kubectl build entirely using Debian-packaged dependencies only, no vendoring, no downloading from the internet, no proprietary blobs.

Upstream Version 1.32.3 and Beyond After nearly two years of work, we successfully uploaded version 1.32.3+ds of kubectl to Debian unstable. kubernetes/-/merge_requests/1 The new package also includes:
  • Zsh, Fish, and Bash completions installed automatically
  • Man pages and metadata for improved discoverability
  • Full integration with kind and docker for testing purposes

Integration Testing with Autopkgtest To ensure the reliability of kubectl in real-world scenarios, we developed a new autopkgtest suite that runs integration tests using real Kubernetes clusters created via Kind. Autopkgtest is a Debian tool used to run automated tests on binary packages. These tests are executed after the package is built but before it s accepted into the Debian archive, helping catch regressions and integration issues early in the packaging pipeline. Our test workflow validates kubectl by performing the following steps:
  • Installing Kind and Docker as test dependencies.
  • Spinning up two local Kubernetes clusters.
  • Switching between cluster contexts to ensure multi-cluster support.
  • Deploying and scaling a sample nginx application using kubectl.
  • Cleaning up the entire test environment to avoid side effects.
  • debian/tests/kubectl.sh

Popcon: Measuring Adoption To measure real-world usage, we rely on data from Debian s popularity contest (popcon), which gives insight into how many users have each binary installed. popcon-graph popcon-table Here s what the data tells us:
  • kubectl (new binary): Already installed on 2,124 systems.
  • golang-k8s-kubectl-dev: This is the Go development package (a library), useful for other packages and developers who want to interact with Kubernetes programmatically.
  • kubernetes-client: The legacy package that kubectl is replacing. We expect this number to decrease in future releases as more systems transition to the new package.
Although the popcon data shows activity for kubectl before the official Debian upload date, it s important to note that those numbers represent users who had it installed from upstream source-lists, not from the Debian repositories. This distinction underscores a demand that existed even before the package was available in Debian proper, and it validates the importance of bringing it into the archive.
Also worth mentioning: this number is not the real total number of installations, since users can choose not to participate in the popularity contest. So the actual adoption is likely higher than what popcon reflects.

Community and Documentation The team also maintains a dedicated wiki page which documents:
  • Maintained tools and packages
  • Contribution guidelines
  • Our roadmap for the upcoming Debian releases
https://debian-kubernetes.org

Looking Ahead to Debian 13 (Trixie) The next stable release of Debian will ship with kubectl version 1.32.3, built from a clean, de-vendorized source. This version includes nearly all the latest upstream features, and will be the first time in years that Debian users can rely on an up-to-date, policy-compliant kubectl directly from the archive. By comparing with upstream, our Debian package even delivers more out of the box, including shell completions, which the upstream still requires users to generate manually. In 2025, the Debian Kubernetes team will continue expanding our packaging efforts for the Kubernetes ecosystem. Our roadmap includes:
  • kubelet: The primary node agent that runs on each node. This will enable Debian users to create fully functional Kubernetes nodes without relying on external packages.
  • kubeadm: A tool for creating Kubernetes clusters. With kubeadm in Debian, users will then be able to bootstrap minimum viable clusters directly from the official repositories.
  • helm: The package manager for Kubernetes that helps manage applications through Kubernetes YAML files defined as charts.
  • kompose: A conversion tool that helps users familiar with docker-compose move to Kubernetes by translating Docker Compose files into Kubernetes resources.

Final Thoughts This journey was only possible thanks to the amazing support of the debian-devel-br community and the collective effort of contributors who stepped up to package missing dependencies, fix bugs, and test new versions. Special thanks to:
  • Carlos Henrique Melara (@charles)
  • Guilherme Puida (@puida)
  • Jo o Pedro Nobrega (@jnpf)
  • Lucas Kanashiro (@kanashiro)
  • Matheus Polkorny (@polkorny)
  • Samuel Henrique (@samueloph)
  • Sergio Cipriano (@cipriano)
  • Sergio Durigan Junior (@sergiodj)
I look forward to continuing this work, bringing more Kubernetes tools into Debian and improving the developer experience for everyone.

Debian XMPP Team: XMPP/Jabber Debian 13 Trixie News

Debian 13 "Trixie" full freeze has started 2025-05-17, so this is a good time to take a look at some of the features, that this release will bring. Here we will focus on packages related to XMPP, a.k.a. Jabber. XMPP is a universal communication protocol for instant messaging, push notifications, IoT, WebRTC, and social applications. It has existed since 1999, originally called "Jabber", it has a diverse and active developers community. Clients Servers Libraries Gateways/Transports Not in Trixie

28 May 2025

Clint Adams: Potted meat is viewed differently by different cultures

I've been working on a multi-label email classification model. It's been a frustrating slog, fraught with challenges, including a lack of training data. Labeling emails is labor-intensive and error-prone. Also, I habitually delete certain classes of email immediately after its usefulness has been reduced. I use a CRM-114-based spam filtering system (actually I use two different isntances of the same mailreaver config, but that's another story), which is differently frustrating, but I delete spam when it's detected or when it's trained. Fortunately, there's no shortage of incoming spam, so I can collect enough, but for other, arguably more important labels, they arrive infrequently. So, those labels need to be excluded, or the small sample sizes wreck the training feedback loop. Currently, I have ten active labels, and even though the point of this is not to be a spam filter, spam is one of the labels. Out of curiosity, I decided to compare the performance of my three different models, and to do so on a neutral corpus (in other words, emails that none of them had ever been trained on). I grabbed the full TREC 2007 corpus and ran inference. The results were unexpected in many ways. For example, the Pearson correlation coefficient between my older CRM-114 model and my newer CRM-114 was only about 0.78. I was even more surprised by how poorly all three performed. Were they overfit to my email? So, I decided to look at the TREC corpus for the first time, and lo and behold, the first spam-labeled email I checked was something I would definitely train all three models with as non-spam, but ham for CRM-114 and an entirely different label for my experimental model.
Posted on 2025-05-28
Tags:

Jonathan Dowland: Linux Mount Namespaces

I've been refreshing myself on the low-level guts of Linux container technology. Here's some notes on mount namespaces. In the below examples, I will use more than one root shell simultaneously. To disambiguate them, the examples will feature a numbered shell prompt: 1# for the first shell, and 2# for the second. Preliminaries Namespaces are normally associated with processes and are removed when the last associated process terminates. To make them persistent, you have to bind-mount the corresponding virtual file from an associated processes's entry in /proc, to another path1. The receiving path needs to have its "propogation" property set to "private". Most likely your system's existing mounts are mostly "public". You can check the propogation setting for mounts with
1# findmnt -o+PROPAGATION
We'll create a new directory to hold mount namespaces we create, and set its Propagation to private, via a bind-mount of itself to itself.
1# mkdir /root/mntns
1# mount --bind --make-private /root/mntns /root/mntns
The namespace itself needs to be bind-mounted over a file rather than a directory, so we'll create one.
1# touch /root/mntns/1
Creating and persisting a new mount namespace
1# unshare --mount=/root/mntns/1
We are now 'inside' the new namespace in a new shell process. We'll change the shell prompt to make this clearer
PS1='inside# '
We can make a filesystem change, such as mounting a tmpfs
inside# mount -t tmpfs /mnt /mnt
inside# touch /mnt/hi-there
And observe it is not visible outside that namespace
2# findmnt /mnt
2# stat /mnt/hi-there
stat: cannot statx '/mnt/hi-there': No such file or directory
Back to the namespace shell, we can find an integer identifier for the namespace via the shell processes /proc entry:
inside# readlink /proc/$$/ns/mnt
It will be something like mnt:[4026533646]. From another shell, we can list namespaces and see that it exists:
2# lsns -t mnt
        NS TYPE NPROCS   PID USER             COMMAND
 
4026533646 mnt       1 52525 root             -bash
If we exit the shell that unshare created,
inside# exit
running lsns again should2 still list the namespace, albeit with the NPROCS column now reading 0.
2# lsns -t mnt
We can see that a virtual filesystem of type nsfs is mounted at the path we selected when we ran unshare:
2# grep /root/mntns/1 /proc/mounts 
nsfs /root/mntns/1 nsfs rw 0 0
Entering the namespace from another process This is relatively easy:
1# nsenter --mount=/root/mntns/1
1# stat /mnt/hi-there
  File: /mnt/hi-there
 
More to come in future blog posts! References These were particularly useful in figuring this out:

  1. This feels really weird to me. At least at first. I suppose it fits with the "everything is a file" philosophy.
  2. I've found lsns in util-linux 2.38.1 (from 2022-08-04) doesn't list mount namespaces with no associated processes; but 2.41 (from 2025-03-18) does. The fix landed in 2022-11-08. For extra fun, I notice that a namespace can be held persistent with a file descriptor which is unlinked from the filesystem

Yves-Alexis Perez: Running autopkgtests locally

As a small addendum to the last post, here are the relevant commands #debci helpfully provided. First, you need to install the autopkgtest package, obviously:

# apt install autopkgtest Then you need to create a Debian virtual machine to run the tests (put the sid.raw wherever you prefer):

# autopkgtest-build-qemu sid /tmp/sid.raw Then you can run the tests themselves, using the just created virtual machine. The autopkgtest command can use the tests from various sources, using the last argument to the command. In my case what was the most helpful was to run the tests from my git clone (which uses gbp) so I could edit the tests directly. So I didn't give anything for testsrc (but . would work as well I guess).

$ autopkgtest -BU --add-apt-release=unstable --pin-packages=unstable=strongswan -- qemu /tmp/sid.raw --ram-size=4096 --cpus=1 Then I could play with the tests themselves, the number of CPU for the Qemu VM, and run everything in a loop.

Bits from Debian: Debian welcomes the 2025 GSOC contributors/students

GSoC logo We are very excited to announce that Debian has selected nine contributors to work under mentorship on a variety of projects with us during the Google Summer of Code. Here is a list of the projects and students, along with details of the tasks to be performed.
Project: Quality assurance and continuous integration for biological and medical applications inside Debian Deliverables of the project: Continuous integration tests for Debian Med applications lacking a test, Quality Assurance review and bug fixing if issues might be uncovered.
Project: Device-specific Tweaks Management Deliverables of the project: Analysis and discussion of the current state of device tweaks management in Debian and Mobian. Proposal for a unified, run-time approach. Packaging of this service and tweaks data/configuration for at least one device.
Project: Enhancing Debian packages with ROCm GPU acceleration Deliverables of the project: New Debian packages with GPU support. Enhanced GPU support within existing Debian packages. More autopackagetests running on the Debian ROCm CI.
Project: Make Debian for Raspberry Pi Build Again Deliverables of the project: Refreshing the set of daily-built images. Having the set of daily-built images become automatic again that is, go back to the promise of having it daily-built. Write an Ansible playbook/Chef recipe/Puppet whatsitsname to define a virtual serve and have it build daily. Do the (very basic!) hardware testing on several Raspberry computers. Do note, naturally, this will require having access to the relevant hardware.
Project: Package LLM Inference Libraries Deliverables of the project: Eventually I hope we can make vLLM into Debian archive, based on which we can deliver something for LLM inference out-of-the-box. If the amount of work eventually turns to be beyond my expectation, I'm still happy to see how far we can go towards this goal. If the amount of work required for vLLM is less than I expected, we can also look at something else like SGLang, another open source LLM inference library.
Project: Autopkgtests for the rsync package Deliverables of the project: Autopkgtests for the rsync package.
Project: Enhancing Salsa CI in Debian Deliverables of the project: More features, robustness, speed.
Congratulations and welcome to all the contributors! The Google Summer of Code program is possible in Debian thanks to the efforts of Debian Developers and Debian Contributors that dedicate part of their free time to mentor contributors and outreach tasks. Join us and help extend Debian! You can follow the contributors' weekly reports on the debian-outreach mailing-list, chat with us on our IRC channel or reach out to the individual projects' team mailing lists.

Bits from Debian: Debian Day 2025 - call for celebration

Each year on August the 16th, we celebrate the Debian Project Anniversary. Several communities around the world join us in celebrating "Debian Day" with local events, parties, or gatherings. So, how about celebrating the 32nd anniversary of the Debian Project in 2025 in your city? As the 16th of August falls on a Saturday this year, we believe it is great timing to gather people around your event. We invite you and your local community to organize a Debian Day by hosting an event with talks, workshops, a bug squashing party, or OpenPGP keysigning gathering, etc. You could also hold a meeting with others in the Debian community in a smaller social setting like a bar/pizzeria/cafeteria/restaurant to celebrate. In other words, any type of celebrating is valid! Remember to add your city to the Debian Day wiki page There is a list of Debian Local Groups around the world. If your city is listed, talk to them to organize DebianDay together. To inspire you and your local community, see some photos from 2023 and 2024 Let's use hashtags #DebianDay #DebianDay2025 on social media. debianday-logo

27 May 2025

Ravi Dwivedi: Singapore Visa Process

In November 2024, Badri and I applied for a Singapore visa to visit the country. To apply for a Singapore visa, you need to visit an authorized travel agent listed by the Singapore High Commission on their website. Unlike the Schengen visa (where only VFS can process applications), the Singapore visa has many authorized travel agents to choose from. I remember that the list mentioned as many as 25 authorized agents in Chennai. For my application, I randomly selected Ria International in Karol Bagh, New Delhi from the list. Further, you need to apply not more than a month before your travel dates. As our travel dates were in December, we applied in the month of November. For your reference, I submitted the following documents: I didn t have my photograph in the specified dimensions, so the travel agent took my photo on the spot. The visa application was 2,567. Furthermore, I submitted my application on a Saturday and received a call from the travel agent on Tuesday informing me that they had received my visa from the Singapore High Commission. The next day, I visit the travel agent s office and picked up my passport and a black and white copy of my e-visa. Later, I downloaded a PDF of my visa from the website mentioned on it, and took a colored printout myself. Singapore granted me a multiple-entry visa for 2 months, even though I had applied for a 4-day single-entry visa. We were planning to add more countries to this trip; therefore, a multiple-entry visa would be helpful in case we wanted to use Singapore Airport, as it has good connectivity. However, it turned out that flights from Kuala Lumpur were much cheaper than those from Singapore, so we didn t enter Singapore again after leaving. Badri also did the same process but entirely remotely he posted the documents to the visa agency in Chennai, and got his e-visa in a few days followed by his original passport which was delivered by courier. He got his photo taken in the same dimensions mentioned above, and printed as matte finish as instructed. However, the visa agents asked why his photo was looking so faded. We don t know if they thought the matte finish was faded or what. To rectify this, Badri emailed them a digital copy of the photo to them (both the cropped version and the original) and they handled the reprinting on their end (which he never got to see). Before entering Singapore, we had to fill an arrival card - an online form asking a few details about our trip - within 72 hours of our arrival in Singapore. That s it for now. Meet you in the next post. Thanks to Badri for reviewing the draft.

Russell Coker: Leaf ZE1

I ve just got a second hand Nissan LEAF. It s not nearly as luxurious as the Genesis EV that I test drove [1]. It s also just over 5 years old so it s not as slick as the MG4 I test drove [2]. But the going rate for a LEAF of that age is $17,000 vs $35,000 or more for a new MG4 or $130,000+ for a Genesis. At this time the LEAF is the only EV in Australia that s available on the second hand market in quantity. Apparently the cheapest new EV in Australia is a Great Wall one which is $32,000 and which had a wait list last time I checked, so $17,000 is a decent price if you want an electric car and aren t interested in paying the price of a new car. Starting the Car One thing I don t like about most recent cars (petrol as well as electric) is that they needlessly break traditions of car design. Inserting a key and turning it clockwise to start a car is a long standing tradition that shouldn t be broken without a good reason. With the use of traditional keys you know that when a car has the key removed it can t be operated, there s no situation of the person with the key walking away and leaving the car driveable and there s no possibility of the owner driving somewhere without the key and then being unable to start it. To start a LEAF you have to have the key fob device in range, hold down the brake pedal, and then press the power button. To turn on accessories you do the same but without holding down the brake pedal. They also have patterns of pushes, push twice to turn it on, push three times to turn it off. This is all a lot easier with a key where you can just rotate it as many clicks as needed. The change of car design for the key means that no physical contact is needed to unlock the car. If someone stands by a car fiddling with the door lock it will get noticed which deters certain types of crime. If a potential thief can sit in a nearby car to try attack methods and only walk to the target vehicle once it s unlocked it makes the crime a lot easier. Even if the electronic key is as secure as a physical key allowing attempts to unlock remotely weakens security. Reports on forums suggest that the electronic key is vulnerable to replay attacks. I guess I just have to hope that as car thieves typically get less than 10% of the value of a car it s just not worth their effort to steal a $17,000 car. Unlocking doors remotely is a common feature that s been around for a while but starting a car without a key being physically inserted is a new thing. Other Features The headlights turn on automatically when the car thinks that the level of ambient light warrants it. There is an option to override this to turn on lights but no option to force the lights to be off. So if you have your car in the on state while parked the headlights will be on even if you are parked and listening to the radio. The LEAF has a bunch of luxury features which seem a bit ridiculous like seat warmers. It also has a heated steering wheel which has turned out to be a good option for me as I have problems with my hands getting cold. According to the My Nissan LEAF Forum the seat warmer uses a maximum of 50W per seat while the car heater uses a minimum of 250W [3]. So if there are one or two people in the car then significantly less power is used by just heating the seats and also keeping the car air cool reduces window fog. The Bluetooth audio support works well. I ve done hands free calls and used it for playing music from my phone. This is the first car I ve owned with Bluetooth support. It also has line-in which might have had some use in 2019 but is becoming increasingly useless as phones with Bluetooth become more popular. It has support for two devices connecting via Bluetooth at the same time which could be handy if you wanted to watch movies on a laptop or tablet while waiting for someone. The LEAF has some of the newer safety features, it tracks lane markers and notifies the driver via beeps and vibration if they stray from their lane. It also tries to read speed limit signs and display the last observed speed limit on the dash display. It also has a skid alert which in my experience goes off under hard acceleration when it s not skidding but doesn t go off if you lose grip when cornering. The features for detecting changing lanes when close to other cars and for emergency braking when another car is partly in the lane (even if moving out of the lane) don t seem well tuned for Australian driving, the common trend on Australian roads is lawful-evil to use DND terminology. Range My most recent driving was just over 2 hours driving with a distance of a bit over 100Km which took the battery from 62% to 14%. So it looks like I can drive a bit over 200Km at an average speed of 50Km/h. I have been unable to find out the battery size for my car, my model will have either a 40KWh or 62KWh battery. Google results say it should be printed on the B pillar (it s not) and that it can be deduced from the VIN (it can t). I m guessing that my car is the cheaper option which is supposed to do 240Km when new which means that a bit over 200Km at an average speed of 50Km/h when 6yo is about what s expected. If it has the larger battery designed to do 340Km then doing 200Km in real use would be rather disappointing. Assuming the battery is 40KWh that means it s 5Km/KWh or 10KW average for the duration. That means that the 250W or so used by the car heater should only make a about 2% difference to range which is something that a human won t usually notice. If I was to drive to another state I d definitely avoid using the heater or airconditioner as an extra 4km could really matter when trying to find a place to charge when you aren t familiar with the area. It s also widely reported that the LEAF is less efficient at highway speeds which is an extra difficulty for that. It seems that the LEAF just isn t designed for interstate driving in Australia, it would be fine for driving between provinces of the Netherlands as it s difficult to drive for 200km without leaving that country. Driving 700km to another city in a car with 200km range would mean charging 3 times along the way, that s 2 hours of charging time when using fast chargers. This isn t a problem at all as the average household in Australia has 1.8 cars and the battery electric vehicles only comprise 6.3% of the market. So if a household had a LEAF and a Prius they could just use the Prius for interstate driving. A recent Prius could drive from Melbourne to Canberra or Adelaide without refuelling on the way. If I was driving to another state a couple of times a year I could rent an old fashioned car to do that and still be saving money when compared to buying petrol all the time. Running Cost Currently I m paying about $0.28 per KWh for electricity, it s reported that the efficiency of charging a LEAF is as low as 83% with the best efficiency when fast charging. I don t own the fast charge hardware and don t plan to install it as that would require getting a replacement of the connection to my home from the street, a new switchboard, and other expenses. So I expect I ll be getting 83% efficiency when charging which means 48KWh for 200KM or 96KWH for the equivalent of a $110 tank of petrol. At $0.28/KWh it will cost $26 for the same amount of driving as $110 of petrol. I also anticipate saving money on service as there s no need for engine oil changes and all the other maintenance of a petrol engine and regenerative braking will reduce the incidence of brake pad replacement. I expect to save over $1100 per annum on using electricity instead of petrol even if I pay the full rate. But if I charge my car in the middle of the day when there is over supply and I don t get paid for feeding electricity from my solar panels into the grid (as is common nowadays) it could be almost free to charge the car and I could save about $1500 on fuel. Comfort Electric cars are much quieter than cars with petrol or Diesel engines which is a major luxury feature. This car is also significantly newer than any other car I ve driven much so it has features like Bluetooth audio which weren t in other cars I ve driven. When doing 100Km/h I can hear a lot of noise from the airflow, part of that would be due to the LEAF not having the extreme streamlining features that are associated with Teslas (such as retracting door handles) and part of that would be due to the car being older and the door seals not being as good as they were when new. It s still a very quiet car with a very smooth ride. It would be nice if they used the quality of seals and soundproofing that VW uses in the Passat but I guess the car would be heavier and have a shorter range if they did that. This car has less space for the driver than any other car I ve driven (with the possible exception of a 1989 Ford Laser AKA Mazda 323). The front seats have less space than the Prius. Also the batteries seem to be under the front seats so there s a bulge in the floor going slightly in front of the front seats when they are moved back which gives less space for the front passenger to move their legs and less space for the driver when sitting in a parked car. There are a selection of electric cars from MG, BYD, and Great Wall that have more space in the front seats, if those cars were on the second hand market I might have made a different choice but a second hand LEAF is the only option for a cheap electric car in Australia now. The heated steering wheel and heated seats took a bit of getting used to but I have come to appreciate the steering wheel and the heated seats are a good way of extending the range of the car. Misc Notes The LEAF is a fun car to drive and being quiet is a luxury feature, it s no different to other EVs in this regard. It isn t nearly as fast as a Tesla, but is faster than most cars actually drive on the road. When I was looking into buying a LEAF from one of the car sales sites I was looking at models less than 5 years old. But the ZR1 series went from 2017 to 2023 so there s probably not much difference between a 2019 model and a 2021 model but there is a significant price difference. I didn t deliberately choose a 2019 car, it was what a relative was selling at a time when I needed a new car. But knowing what I know now I d probably look at that age of LEAF if choosing from the car sales sites. Problems When I turn the car off the side mirrors fold in but when I turn it on they usually don t automatically unfold if I have anything connected to the cigarette lighter power port. This is a well known problem and documented on forums. This is something that Nissan really should have tested before release because phone chargers that connect to the car cigarette lighter port have been common for at least 6 years before my car was manufactured and at least 4 years before the ZE1 model was released. The built in USB port doesn t supply enough power to match the power use of a Galaxy Note 9 running Google maps and playing music through Bluetooth. On it s own this isn t a big deal but combined with the mirror issue of using a charger in the cigarette lighter port it s a problem. The cover over the charging ports doesn t seem to lock easily enough, I had it come open when doing 100Km/h on a freeway. This wasn t a big deal but as the cover opens in a suicide-door manner at a higher speed it could have broken off. The word is that LEAF service in Australia is not done well. Why do you need regular service of an electric car anyway? For petrol and Diesel cars it s engine oil replacement that makes it necessary to have regular service. Surely you can just drive it until either the brakes squeak or the tires seem worn. I have been having problems charging, sometimes it will charge from ~20% to 100% in under 24 hours, sometimes in 14+ hours it only gets to 30%. Conclusion This is a good car and the going price on them is low. I generally recommend them as long as you aren t really big and aren t too worried about the poor security. It s a fun car to drive even with a few annoying things like the mirrors not automatically extending on start. The older ones like this are cheap enough that they should be able to cover the entire purchase cost in 10 years by the savings from not buying petrol even if you don t drive a lot. With a petrol car I use about 13 tanks of petrol a year so my driving is about half the average for Australia. Some people could cover the purchase price of a second hand leaf in under 5 years.

26 May 2025

Otto Kek l inen: Creating Debian packages from upstream Git

Featured image of post Creating Debian packages from upstream GitIn this post, I demonstrate the optimal workflow for creating new Debian packages in 2025, preserving the upstream git history. The motivation for this is to lower the barrier for sharing improvements to and from upstream, and to improve software provenance and supply-chain security by making it easy to inspect every change at any level using standard git tooling. Key elements of this workflow include: To make the instructions so concrete that anyone can repeat all the steps themselves on a real package, I demonstrate the steps by packaging the command-line tool Entr. It is written in C, has very few dependencies, and its final Debian source package structure is simple, yet exemplifies all the important parts that go into a complete Debian package:
  1. Creating a new packaging repository and publishing it under your personal namespace on salsa.debian.org.
  2. Using dh_make to create the initial Debian packaging.
  3. Posting the first draft of the Debian packaging as a Merge Request (MR) and using Salsa CI to verify Debian packaging quality.
  4. Running local builds efficiently and iterating on the packaging process.

Create new Debian packaging repository from the existing upstream project git repository First, create a new empty directory, then clone the upstream Git repository inside it:
shell
mkdir debian-entr
cd debian-entr
git clone --origin upstreamvcs --branch master \
 --single-branch https://github.com/eradman/entr.git
Using a clean directory makes it easier to inspect the build artifacts of a Debian package, which will be output in the parent directory of the Debian source directory. The extra parameters given to git clone lay the foundation for the Debian packaging git repository structure where the upstream git remote name is upstreamvcs. Only the upstream main branch is tracked to avoid cluttering git history with upstream development branches that are irrelevant for packaging in Debian. Next, enter the git repository directory and list the git tags. Pick the latest upstream release tag as the commit to start the branch upstream/latest. This latest refers to the upstream release, not the upstream development branch. Immediately after, branch off the debian/latest branch, which will have the actual Debian packaging files in the debian/ subdirectory.
shell
cd entr
git tag # shows the latest upstream release tag was '5.6'
git checkout -b upstream/latest 5.6
git checkout -b debian/latest
%% init:   'gitGraph':   'mainBranchName': 'master'      %%
gitGraph:
checkout master
commit id: "Upstream 5.6 release" tag: "5.6"
branch upstream/latest
checkout upstream/latest
commit id: "New upstream version 5.6" tag: "upstream/5.6"
branch debian/latest
checkout debian/latest
commit id: "Initial Debian packaging"
commit id: "Additional change 1"
commit id: "Additional change 2"
commit id: "Additional change 3"
At this point, the repository is structured according to DEP-14 conventions, ensuring a clear separation between upstream and Debian packaging changes, but there are no Debian changes yet. Next, add the Salsa repository as a new remote which called origin, the same as the default remote name in git.
shell
git remote add origin git@salsa.debian.org:otto/entr-demo.git
git push --set-upstream origin debian/latest
This is an important preparation step to later be able to create a Merge Request on Salsa that targets the debian/latest branch, which does not yet have any debian/ directory.

Launch a Debian Sid (unstable) container to run builds in To ensure that all packaging tools are of the latest versions, run everything inside a fresh Sid container. This has two benefits: you are guaranteed to have the most up-to-date toolchain, and your host system stays clean without getting polluted by various extra packages. Additionally, this approach works even if your host system is not Debian/Ubuntu.
shell
cd ..
podman run --interactive --tty --rm --shm-size=1G --cap-add SYS_PTRACE \
 --env='DEB*' --volume=$PWD:/tmp/test --workdir=/tmp/test debian:sid bash
Note that the container should be started from the parent directory of the git repository, not inside it. The --volume parameter will loop-mount the current directory inside the container. Thus all files created and modified are on the host system, and will persist after the container shuts down. Once inside the container, install the basic dependencies:
shell
apt update -q && apt install -q --yes git-buildpackage dpkg-dev dh-make

Automate creating the debian/ files with dh-make To create the files needed for the actual Debian packaging, use dh_make:
shell
# dh_make --packagename entr_5.6 --single --createorig
Maintainer Name : Otto Kek l inen
Email-Address : otto@debian.org
Date : Sat, 15 Feb 2025 01:17:51 +0000
Package Name : entr
Version : 5.6
License : blank
Package Type : single
Are the details correct? [Y/n/q]

Done. Please edit the files in the debian/ subdirectory now.
Due to how dh_make works, the package name and version need to be written as a single underscore separated string. In this case, you should choose --single to specify that the package type is a single binary package. Other options would be --library for library packages (see libgda5 sources as an example) or --indep (see dns-root-data sources as an example). The --createorig will create a mock upstream release tarball (entr_5.6.orig.tar.xz) from the current release directory, which is necessary due to historical reasons and how dh_make worked before git repositories became common and Debian source packages were based off upstream release tarballs (e.g. *.tar.gz). At this stage, a debian/ directory has been created with template files, and you can start modifying the files and iterating towards actual working packaging.
shell
git add debian/
git commit -a -m "Initial Debian packaging"

Review the files The full list of files after the above steps with dh_make would be:
 -- entr
   -- LICENSE
   -- Makefile.bsd
   -- Makefile.linux
   -- Makefile.linux-compat
   -- Makefile.macos
   -- NEWS
   -- README.md
   -- configure
   -- data.h
   -- debian
     -- README.Debian
     -- README.source
     -- changelog
     -- control
     -- copyright
     -- gbp.conf
     -- entr-docs.docs
     -- entr.cron.d.ex
     -- entr.doc-base.ex
     -- manpage.1.ex
     -- manpage.md.ex
     -- manpage.sgml.ex
     -- manpage.xml.ex
     -- postinst.ex
     -- postrm.ex
     -- preinst.ex
     -- prerm.ex
     -- rules
     -- salsa-ci.yml.ex
     -- source
       -- format
     -- upstream
       -- metadata.ex
     -- watch.ex
   -- entr.1
   -- entr.c
   -- missing
     -- compat.h
     -- kqueue_inotify.c
     -- strlcpy.c
     -- sys
     -- event.h
   -- status.c
   -- status.h
   -- system_test.sh
 -- entr_5.6.orig.tar.xz
You can browse these files in the demo repository. The mandatory files in the debian/ directory are:
  • changelog,
  • control,
  • copyright,
  • and rules.
All the other files have been created for convenience so the packager has template files to work from. The files with the suffix .ex are example files that won t have any effect until their content is adjusted and the suffix removed. For detailed explanations of the purpose of each file in the debian/ subdirectory, see the following resources:
  • The Debian Policy Manual: Describes the structure of the operating system, the package archive and requirements for packages to be included in the Debian archive.
  • The Developer s Reference: A collection of best practices and process descriptions Debian packagers are expected to follow while interacting with one another.
  • Debhelper man pages: Detailed information of how the Debian package build system works, and how the contents of the various files in debian/ affect the end result.
As Entr, the package used in this example, is a real package that already exists in the Debian archive, you may want to browse the actual Debian packaging source at https://salsa.debian.org/debian/entr/-/tree/debian/latest/debian for reference. Most of these files have standardized formatting conventions to make collaboration easier. To automatically format the files following the most popular conventions, simply run wrap-and-sort -vast or debputy reformat --style=black.

Identify build dependencies The most common reason for builds to fail is missing dependencies. The easiest way to identify which Debian package ships the required dependency is using apt-file. If, for example, a build fails complaining that pcre2posix.h cannot be found or that libcre2-posix.so is missing, you can use these commands:
shell
$ apt install -q --yes apt-file && apt-file update
$ apt-file search pcre2posix.h
libpcre2-dev: /usr/include/pcre2posix.h
$ apt-file search libpcre2-posix.so
libpcre2-dev: /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libpcre2-posix.so
libpcre2-posix3: /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libpcre2-posix.so.3
libpcre2-posix3: /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libpcre2-posix.so.3.0.6
The output above implies that the debian/control should be extended to define a Build-Depends: libpcre2-dev relationship. There is also dpkg-depcheck that uses strace to trace the files the build process tries to access, and lists what Debian packages those files belong to. Example usage:
shell
dpkg-depcheck -b debian/rules build

Build the Debian sources to generate the .deb package After the first pass of refining the contents of the files in debian/, test the build by running dpkg-buildpackage inside the container:
shell
dpkg-buildpackage -uc -us -b
The options -uc -us will skip signing the resulting Debian source package and other build artifacts. The -b option will skip creating a source package and only build the (binary) *.deb packages. The output is very verbose and gives a large amount of context about what is happening during the build to make debugging build failures easier. In the build log of entr you will see for example the line dh binary --buildsystem=makefile. This and other dh commands can also be run manually if there is a need to quickly repeat only a part of the build while debugging build failures. To see what files were generated or modified by the build simply run git status --ignored:
shell
$ git status --ignored
On branch debian/latest

Untracked files:
 (use "git add <file>..." to include in what will be committed)
 debian/debhelper-build-stamp
 debian/entr.debhelper.log
 debian/entr.substvars
 debian/files

Ignored files:
 (use "git add -f <file>..." to include in what will be committed)
 Makefile
 compat.c
 compat.o
 debian/.debhelper/
 debian/entr/
 entr
 entr.o
 status.o
Re-running dpkg-buildpackage will include running the command dh clean, which assuming it is configured correctly in the debian/rules file will reset the source directory to the original pristine state. The same can of course also be done with regular git commands git reset --hard; git clean -fdx. To avoid accidentally committing unnecessary build artifacts in git, a debian/.gitignore can be useful and it would typically include all four files listed as untracked above. After a successful build you would have the following files:
shell
 -- entr
   -- LICENSE
   -- Makefile -> Makefile.linux
   -- Makefile.bsd
   -- Makefile.linux
   -- Makefile.linux-compat
   -- Makefile.macos
   -- NEWS
   -- README.md
   -- compat.c
   -- compat.o
   -- configure
   -- data.h
   -- debian
     -- README.source.md
     -- changelog
     -- control
     -- copyright
     -- debhelper-build-stamp
     -- docs
     -- entr
       -- DEBIAN
         -- control
         -- md5sums
       -- usr
       -- bin
         -- entr
       -- share
       -- doc
         -- entr
         -- NEWS.gz
         -- README.md
         -- changelog.Debian.gz
         -- copyright
       -- man
       -- man1
       -- entr.1.gz
     -- entr.debhelper.log
     -- entr.substvars
     -- files
     -- gbp.conf
     -- patches
       -- PR149-expand-aliases-in-system-test-script.patch
       -- series
       -- system-test-skip-no-tty.patch
       -- system-test-with-system-binary.patch
     -- rules
     -- salsa-ci.yml
     -- source
       -- format
     -- tests
       -- control
     -- upstream
       -- metadata
       -- signing-key.asc
     -- watch
   -- entr
   -- entr.1
   -- entr.c
   -- entr.o
   -- missing
     -- compat.h
     -- kqueue_inotify.c
     -- strlcpy.c
     -- sys
     -- event.h
   -- status.c
   -- status.h
   -- status.o
   -- system_test.sh
 -- entr-dbgsym_5.6-1_amd64.deb
 -- entr_5.6-1.debian.tar.xz
 -- entr_5.6-1.dsc
 -- entr_5.6-1_amd64.buildinfo
 -- entr_5.6-1_amd64.changes
 -- entr_5.6-1_amd64.deb
 -- entr_5.6.orig.tar.xz
The contents of debian/entr are essentially what goes into the resulting entr_5.6-1_amd64.deb package. Familiarizing yourself with the majority of the files in the original upstream source as well as all the resulting build artifacts is time consuming, but it is a necessary investment to get high-quality Debian packages. There are also tools such as Debcraft that automate generating the build artifacts in separate output directories for each build, thus making it easy to compare the changes to correlate what change in the Debian packaging led to what change in the resulting build artifacts.

Re-run the initial import with git-buildpackage When upstreams publish releases as tarballs, they should also be imported for optimal software supply-chain security, in particular if upstream also publishes cryptographic signatures that can be used to verify the authenticity of the tarballs. To achieve this, the files debian/watch, debian/upstream/signing-key.asc, and debian/gbp.conf need to be present with the correct options. In the gbp.conf file, ensure you have the correct options based on:
  1. Does upstream release tarballs? If so, enforce pristine-tar = True.
  2. Does upstream sign the tarballs? If so, configure explicit signature checking with upstream-signatures = on.
  3. Does upstream have a git repository, and does it have release git tags? If so, configure the release git tag format, e.g. upstream-vcs-tag = %(version%~%.)s.
To validate that the above files are working correctly, run gbp import-orig with the current version explicitly defined:
shell
$ gbp import-orig --uscan --upstream-version 5.6
gbp:info: Launching uscan...
gpgv: Signature made 7. Aug 2024 07.43.27 PDT
gpgv: using RSA key 519151D83E83D40A232B4D615C418B8631BC7C26
gpgv: Good signature from "Eric Radman <ericshane@eradman.com>"
gbp:info: Using uscan downloaded tarball ../entr_5.6.orig.tar.gz
gbp:info: Importing '../entr_5.6.orig.tar.gz' to branch 'upstream/latest'...
gbp:info: Source package is entr
gbp:info: Upstream version is 5.6
gbp:info: Replacing upstream source on 'debian/latest'
gbp:info: Running Postimport hook
gbp:info: Successfully imported version 5.6 of ../entr_5.6.orig.tar.gz
As the original packaging was done based on the upstream release git tag, the above command will fetch the tarball release, create the pristine-tar branch, and store the tarball delta on it. This command will also attempt to create the tag upstream/5.6 on the upstream/latest branch.

Import new upstream versions in the future Forking the upstream git repository, creating the initial packaging, and creating the DEP-14 branch structure are all one-off work needed only when creating the initial packaging. Going forward, to import new upstream releases, one would simply run git fetch upstreamvcs; gbp import-orig --uscan, which fetches the upstream git tags, checks for new upstream tarballs, and automatically downloads, verifies, and imports the new version. See the galera-4-demo example in the Debian source packages in git explained post as a demo you can try running yourself and examine in detail. You can also try running gbp import-orig --uscan without specifying a version. It would fetch it, as it will notice there is now Entr version 5.7 available, and import it.

Build using git-buildpackage From this stage onwards you should build the package using gbp buildpackage, which will do a more comprehensive build.
shell
gbp buildpackage -uc -us
The git-buildpackage build also includes running Lintian to find potential Debian policy violations in the sources or in the resulting .deb binary packages. Many Debian Developers run lintian -EviIL +pedantic after every build to check that there are no new nags, and to validate that changes intended to previous Lintian nags were correct.

Open a Merge Request on Salsa for Debian packaging review Getting everything perfectly right takes a lot of effort, and may require reaching out to an experienced Debian Developers for review and guidance. Thus, you should aim to publish your initial packaging work on Salsa, Debian s GitLab instance, for review and feedback as early as possible. For somebody to be able to easily see what you have done, you should rename your debian/latest branch to another name, for example next/debian/latest, and open a Merge Request that targets the debian/latest branch on your Salsa fork, which still has only the unmodified upstream files. If you have followed the workflow in this post so far, you can simply run:
  1. git checkout -b next/debian/latest
  2. git push --set-upstream origin next/debian/latest
  3. Open in a browser the URL visible in the git remote response
  4. Write the Merge Request description in case the default text from your commit is not enough
  5. Mark the MR as Draft using the checkbox
  6. Publish the MR and request feedback
Once a Merge Request exists, discussion regarding what additional changes are needed can be conducted as MR comments. With an MR, you can easily iterate on the contents of next/debian/latest, rebase, force push, and request re-review as many times as you want. While at it, make sure the Settings > CI/CD page has under CI/CD configuration file the value debian/salsa-ci.yml so that the CI can run and give you immediate automated feedback. For an example of an initial packaging Merge Request, see https://salsa.debian.org/otto/entr-demo/-/merge_requests/1.

Open a Merge Request / Pull Request to fix upstream code Due to the high quality requirements in Debian, it is fairly common that while doing the initial Debian packaging of an open source project, issues are found that stem from the upstream source code. While it is possible to carry extra patches in Debian, it is not good practice to deviate too much from upstream code with custom Debian patches. Instead, the Debian packager should try to get the fixes applied directly upstream. Using git-buildpackage patch queues is the most convenient way to make modifications to the upstream source code so that they automatically convert into Debian patches (stored at debian/patches), and can also easily be submitted upstream as any regular git commit (and rebased and resubmitted many times over). First, decide if you want to work out of the upstream development branch and later cherry-pick to the Debian packaging branch, or work out of the Debian packaging branch and cherry-pick to an upstream branch. The example below starts from the upstream development branch and then cherry-picks the commit into the git-buildpackage patch queue:
shell
git checkout -b bugfix-branch master
nano entr.c
make
./entr # verify change works as expected
git commit -a -m "Commit title" -m "Commit body"
git push # submit upstream
gbp pq import --force --time-machine=10
git cherry-pick <commit id>
git commit --amend # extend commit message with DEP-3 metadata
gbp buildpackage -uc -us -b
./entr # verify change works as expected
gbp pq export --drop --commit
git commit --amend # Write commit message along lines "Add patch to .."
The example below starts by making the fix on a git-buildpackage patch queue branch, and then cherry-picking it onto the upstream development branch:
shell
gbp pq import --force --time-machine=10
nano entr.c
git commit -a -m "Commit title" -m "Commit body"
gbp buildpackage -uc -us -b
./entr # verify change works as expected
gbp pq export --drop --commit
git commit --amend # Write commit message along lines "Add patch to .."
git checkout -b bugfix-branch master
git cherry-pick <commit id>
git commit --amend # prepare commit message for upstream submission
git push # submit upstream
The key git-buildpackage commands to enter and exit the patch-queue mode are:
shell
gbp pq import --force --time-machine=10
gbp pq export --drop --commit
%% init:   'gitGraph':   'mainBranchName': 'debian/latest'      %%
gitGraph
checkout debian/latest
commit id: "Initial packaging"
branch patch-queue/debian/latest
checkout patch-queue/debian/latest
commit id: "Delete debian/patches/..."
commit id: "Patch 1 title"
commit id: "Patch 2 title"
commit id: "Patch 3 title"
These can be run at any time, regardless if any debian/patches existed prior, or if existing patches applied cleanly or not, or if there were old patch queue branches around. Note that the extra -b in gbp buildpackage -uc -us -b instructs to build only binary packages, avoiding any nags from dpkg-source that there are modifications in the upstream sources while building in the patches-applied mode.

Programming-language specific dh-make alternatives As each programming language has its specific way of building the source code, and many other conventions regarding the file layout and more, Debian has multiple custom tools to create new Debian source packages for specific programming languages. Notably, Python does not have its own tool, but there is an dh_make --python option for Python support directly in dh_make itself. The list is not complete and many more tools exist. For some languages, there are even competing options, such as for Go there is in addition to dh-make-golang also Gophian. When learning Debian packaging, there is no need to learn these tools upfront. Being aware that they exist is enough, and one can learn them only if and when one starts to package a project in a new programming language.

The difference between source git repository vs source packages vs binary packages As seen in earlier example, running gbp buildpackage on the Entr packaging repository above will result in several files:
entr_5.6-1_amd64.changes
entr_5.6-1_amd64.deb
entr_5.6-1.debian.tar.xz
entr_5.6-1.dsc
entr_5.6.orig.tar.gz
entr_5.6.orig.tar.gz.asc
The entr_5.6-1_amd64.deb is the binary package, which can be installed on a Debian/Ubuntu system. The rest of the files constitute the source package. To do a source-only build, run gbp buildpackage -S and note the files produced:
entr_5.6-1_source.changes
entr_5.6-1.debian.tar.xz
entr_5.6-1.dsc
entr_5.6.orig.tar.gz
entr_5.6.orig.tar.gz.asc
The source package files can be used to build the binary .deb for amd64, or any architecture that the package supports. It is important to grasp that the Debian source package is the preferred form to be able to build the binary packages on various Debian build systems, and the Debian source package is not the same thing as the Debian packaging git repository contents.
flowchart LR
git[Git repository<br>branch debian/latest] --> gbp buildpackage -S  src[Source Package<br>.dsc + .tar.xz]
src --> dpkg-buildpackage  bin[Binary Packages<br>.deb]
If the package is large and complex, the build could result in multiple binary packages. One set of package definition files in debian/ will however only ever result in a single source package.

Option to repackage source packages with Files-Excluded lists in the debian/copyright file Some upstream projects may include binary files in their release, or other undesirable content that needs to be omitted from the source package in Debian. The easiest way to filter them out is by adding to the debian/copyright file a Files-Excluded field listing the undesired files. The debian/copyright file is read by uscan, which will repackage the upstream sources on-the-fly when importing new upstream releases. For a real-life example, see the debian/copyright files in the Godot package that lists:
debian
Files-Excluded: platform/android/java/gradle/wrapper/gradle-wrapper.jar
The resulting repackaged upstream source tarball, as well as the upstream version component, will have an extra +ds to signify that it is not the true original upstream source but has been modified by Debian:
godot_4.3+ds.orig.tar.xz
godot_4.3+ds-1_amd64.deb

Creating one Debian source package from multiple upstream source packages also possible In some rare cases the upstream project may be split across multiple git repositories or the upstream release may consist of multiple components each in their own separate tarball. Usually these are very large projects that get some benefits from releasing components separately. If in Debian these are deemed to go into a single source package, it is technically possible using the component system in git-buildpackage and uscan. For an example see the gbp.conf and watch files in the node-cacache package. Using this type of structure should be a last resort, as it creates complexity and inter-dependencies that are bound to cause issues later on. It is usually better to work with upstream and champion universal best practices with clear releases and version schemes.

When not to start the Debian packaging repository as a fork of the upstream one Not all upstreams use Git for version control. It is by far the most popular, but there are still some that use e.g. Subversion or Mercurial. Who knows maybe in the future some new version control systems will start to compete with Git. There are also projects that use Git in massive monorepos and with complex submodule setups that invalidate the basic assumptions required to map an upstream Git repository into a Debian packaging repository. In those cases one can t use a debian/latest branch on a clone of the upstream git repository as the starting point for the Debian packaging, but one must revert the traditional way of starting from an upstream release tarball with gbp import-orig package-1.0.tar.gz.

Conclusion Created in August 1993, Debian is one of the oldest Linux distributions. In the 32 years since inception, the .deb packaging format and the tooling to work with it have evolved several generations. In the past 10 years, more and more Debian Developers have converged on certain core practices evidenced by https://trends.debian.net/, but there is still a lot of variance in workflows even for identical tasks. Hopefully, you find this post useful in giving practical guidance on how exactly to do the most common things when packaging software for Debian. Happy packaging!

25 May 2025

Iustin Pop: Corydalis v2025.21.0 - new features!

I just released yesterday a new version of Corydalis (https://demo.corydalis.io, https://github.com/iustin/corydalis). To me personally, it s a major improvement, since the native (my own) image viewer finally gets zooming, panning, gesture handling, etc. This is table-stakes for an image viewer, but oh well, it took me a long time to implement it, because of multiple things: lack of time, the JS library I was using for gestures was pretty old and unmaintained and it caused more trouble than was helping, etc. The feature is not perfect, and on the demo site there s already a bug since all images are smaller than the screen, and this I didn t test , so double-click to zoom doesn t work: says Already at minimum zoom , but zooming otherwise (+/- on the keyboard, mouse wheel, gesture) works. End-to-end, the major development for this release was done over around two weeks, which is pretty short: I extensively used Claude Sonnet and Grok to unblock myself. Not to write code per se - although there is code written 1:1 by LLMs, but most of the code is weirdly wrong, and I have to either correct it or just use it as a starter and rewrite most of it. But to discuss and unblock, and learn about new things, the current LLMs are very good at. And yet, sometimes even what they re good at, fails hard. I asked for ideas to simplify a piece of code, and it went nowhere, even if there were significant rewrite possibilities. I spent the brain cycles on it, reverse engineered my own code, then simplified. I ll have to write a separate blog post on this In any case, this (zooming) was the last major feature I was missing. There are image viewer libraries, but most of them slow, compared to the bare-bones (well, now not so much anymore) viewer that I use as main viewer. From now on, it will me minor incremental features, mostly around Exif management/handling, etc. Or, well, internal cleanups: extend test coverage, remove use of JQuery in the frontend, etc., there are tons of things to do. Fun fact: I managed to discover a Safari iOS bug. Or at least I think it s a bug, so reported it and curious what ll come out of it. Finally, I still couldn t fix the GitHub actions bug where the git describe doesn t see the just pushed tag, sigh, so the demo site still lists Corydalis v2024.12.0-133-g00edf63 as the version .

Otto Kek l inen: New Debian package creation from upstream git repository

Featured image of post New Debian package creation from upstream git repositoryIn this post, I demonstrate the optimal workflow for creating new Debian packages in 2025, preserving the upstream git history. The motivation for this is to lower the barrier for sharing improvements to and from upstream, and to improve software provenance and supply-chain security by making it easy to inspect every change at any level using standard git tooling. Key elements of this workflow include: To make the instructions so concrete that anyone can repeat all the steps themselves on a real package, I demonstrate the steps by packaging the command-line tool Entr. It is written in C, has very few dependencies, and its final Debian source package structure is simple, yet exemplifies all the important parts that go into a complete Debian package:
  1. Creating a new packaging repository and publishing it under your personal namespace on salsa.debian.org.
  2. Using dh_make to create the initial Debian packaging.
  3. Posting the first draft of the Debian packaging as a Merge Request (MR) and using Salsa CI to verify Debian packaging quality.
  4. Running local builds efficiently and iterating on the packaging process.

Create new Debian packaging repository from the existing upstream project git repository First, create a new empty directory, then clone the upstream Git repository inside it:
shell
mkdir debian-entr
cd debian-entr
git clone --origin upstreamvcs --branch master \
 --single-branch https://github.com/eradman/entr.git
Using a clean directory makes it easier to inspect the build artifacts of a Debian package, which will be output in the parent directory of the Debian source directory. The extra parameters given to git clone lay the foundation for the Debian packaging git repository structure where the upstream git remote name is upstreamvcs. Only the upstream main branch is tracked to avoid cluttering git history with upstream development branches that are irrelevant for packaging in Debian. Next, enter the git repository directory and list the git tags. Pick the latest upstream release tag as the commit to start the branch upstream/latest. This latest refers to the upstream release, not the upstream development branch. Immediately after, branch off the debian/latest branch, which will have the actual Debian packaging files in the debian/ subdirectory.
shell
cd entr
git tag # shows the latest upstream release tag was '5.6'
git checkout -b upstream/latest 5.6
git checkout -b debian/latest
%% init:   'gitGraph':   'mainBranchName': 'master'      %%
gitGraph:
checkout master
commit id: "Upstream 5.6 release" tag: "5.6"
branch upstream/latest
checkout upstream/latest
commit id: "New upstream version 5.6" tag: "upstream/5.6"
branch debian/latest
checkout debian/latest
commit id: "Initial Debian packaging"
commit id: "Additional change 1"
commit id: "Additional change 2"
commit id: "Additional change 3"
At this point, the repository is structured according to DEP-14 conventions, ensuring a clear separation between upstream and Debian packaging changes, but there are no Debian changes yet. Next, add the Salsa repository as a new remote which called origin, the same as the default remote name in git.
shell
git remote add origin git@salsa.debian.org:otto/entr-demo.git
git push --set-upstream origin debian/latest
This is an important preparation step to later be able to create a Merge Request on Salsa that targets the debian/latest branch, which does not yet have any debian/ directory.

Launch a Debian Sid (unstable) container to run builds in To ensure that all packaging tools are of the latest versions, run everything inside a fresh Sid container. This has two benefits: you are guaranteed to have the most up-to-date toolchain, and your host system stays clean without getting polluted by various extra packages. Additionally, this approach works even if your host system is not Debian/Ubuntu.
shell
cd ..
podman run --interactive --tty --rm --shm-size=1G --cap-add SYS_PTRACE \
 --env='DEB*' --volume=$PWD:/tmp/test --workdir=/tmp/test debian:sid bash
Note that the container should be started from the parent directory of the git repository, not inside it. The --volume parameter will loop-mount the current directory inside the container. Thus all files created and modified are on the host system, and will persist after the container shuts down. Once inside the container, install the basic dependencies:
shell
apt update -q && apt install -q --yes git-buildpackage dpkg-dev dh-make

Automate creating the debian/ files with dh-make To create the files needed for the actual Debian packaging, use dh_make:
shell
# dh_make --packagename entr_5.6 --single --createorig
Maintainer Name : Otto Kek l inen
Email-Address : otto@debian.org
Date : Sat, 15 Feb 2025 01:17:51 +0000
Package Name : entr
Version : 5.6
License : blank
Package Type : single
Are the details correct? [Y/n/q]

Done. Please edit the files in the debian/ subdirectory now.
Due to how dh_make works, the package name and version need to be written as a single underscore separated string. In this case, you should choose --single to specify that the package type is a single binary package. Other options would be --library for library packages (see libgda5 sources as an example) or --indep (see dns-root-data sources as an example). The --createorig will create a mock upstream release tarball (entr_5.6.orig.tar.xz) from the current release directory, which is necessary due to historical reasons and how dh_make worked before git repositories became common and Debian source packages were based off upstream release tarballs (e.g. *.tar.gz). At this stage, a debian/ directory has been created with template files, and you can start modifying the files and iterating towards actual working packaging.
shell
git add debian/
git commit -a -m "Initial Debian packaging"

Review the files The full list of files after the above steps with dh_make would be:
 -- entr
   -- LICENSE
   -- Makefile.bsd
   -- Makefile.linux
   -- Makefile.linux-compat
   -- Makefile.macos
   -- NEWS
   -- README.md
   -- configure
   -- data.h
   -- debian
     -- README.Debian
     -- README.source
     -- changelog
     -- control
     -- copyright
     -- gbp.conf
     -- entr-docs.docs
     -- entr.cron.d.ex
     -- entr.doc-base.ex
     -- manpage.1.ex
     -- manpage.md.ex
     -- manpage.sgml.ex
     -- manpage.xml.ex
     -- postinst.ex
     -- postrm.ex
     -- preinst.ex
     -- prerm.ex
     -- rules
     -- salsa-ci.yml.ex
     -- source
       -- format
     -- upstream
       -- metadata.ex
     -- watch.ex
   -- entr.1
   -- entr.c
   -- missing
     -- compat.h
     -- kqueue_inotify.c
     -- strlcpy.c
     -- sys
     -- event.h
   -- status.c
   -- status.h
   -- system_test.sh
 -- entr_5.6.orig.tar.xz
You can browse these files in the demo repository. The mandatory files in the debian/ directory are:
  • changelog,
  • control,
  • copyright,
  • and rules.
All the other files have been created for convenience so the packager has template files to work from. The files with the suffix .ex are example files that won t have any effect until their content is adjusted and the suffix removed. For detailed explanations of the purpose of each file in the debian/ subdirectory, see the following resources:
  • The Debian Policy Manual: Describes the structure of the operating system, the package archive and requirements for packages to be included in the Debian archive.
  • The Developer s Reference: A collection of best practices and process descriptions Debian packagers are expected to follow while interacting with one another.
  • Debhelper man pages: Detailed information of how the Debian package build system works, and how the contents of the various files in debian/ affect the end result.
As Entr, the package used in this example, is a real package that already exists in the Debian archive, you may want to browse the actual Debian packaging source at https://salsa.debian.org/debian/entr/-/tree/debian/latest/debian for reference. Most of these files have standardized formatting conventions to make collaboration easier. To automatically format the files following the most popular conventions, simply run wrap-and-sort -vast or debputy reformat --style=black.

Identify build dependencies The most common reason for builds to fail is missing dependencies. The easiest way to identify which Debian package ships the required dependency is using apt-file. If, for example, a build fails complaining that pcre2posix.h cannot be found or that libcre2-posix.so is missing, you can use these commands:
shell
$ apt install -q --yes apt-file && apt-file update
$ apt-file search pcre2posix.h
libpcre2-dev: /usr/include/pcre2posix.h
$ apt-file search libpcre2-posix.so
libpcre2-dev: /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libpcre2-posix.so
libpcre2-posix3: /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libpcre2-posix.so.3
libpcre2-posix3: /usr/lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libpcre2-posix.so.3.0.6
The output above implies that the debian/control should be extended to define a Build-Depends: libpcre2-dev relationship. There is also dpkg-depcheck that uses strace to trace the files the build process tries to access, and lists what Debian packages those files belong to. Example usage:
shell
dpkg-depcheck -b debian/rules build

Build the Debian sources to generate the .deb package After the first pass of refining the contents of the files in debian/, test the build by running dpkg-buildpackage inside the container:
shell
dpkg-buildpackage -uc -us -b
The options -uc -us will skip signing the resulting Debian source package and other build artifacts. The -b option will skip creating a source package and only build the (binary) *.deb packages. The output is very verbose and gives a large amount of context about what is happening during the build to make debugging build failures easier. In the build log of entr you will see for example the line dh binary --buildsystem=makefile. This and other dh commands can also be run manually if there is a need to quickly repeat only a part of the build while debugging build failures. To see what files were generated or modified by the build simply run git status --ignored:
shell
$ git status --ignored
On branch debian/latest

Untracked files:
 (use "git add <file>..." to include in what will be committed)
 debian/debhelper-build-stamp
 debian/entr.debhelper.log
 debian/entr.substvars
 debian/files

Ignored files:
 (use "git add -f <file>..." to include in what will be committed)
 Makefile
 compat.c
 compat.o
 debian/.debhelper/
 debian/entr/
 entr
 entr.o
 status.o
Re-running dpkg-buildpackage will include running the command dh clean, which assuming it is configured correctly in the debian/rules file will reset the source directory to the original pristine state. The same can of course also be done with regular git commands git reset --hard; git clean -fdx. To avoid accidentally committing unnecessary build artifacts in git, a debian/.gitignore can be useful and it would typically include all four files listed as untracked above. After a successful build you would have the following files:
shell
 -- entr
   -- LICENSE
   -- Makefile -> Makefile.linux
   -- Makefile.bsd
   -- Makefile.linux
   -- Makefile.linux-compat
   -- Makefile.macos
   -- NEWS
   -- README.md
   -- compat.c
   -- compat.o
   -- configure
   -- data.h
   -- debian
     -- README.source.md
     -- changelog
     -- control
     -- copyright
     -- debhelper-build-stamp
     -- docs
     -- entr
       -- DEBIAN
         -- control
         -- md5sums
       -- usr
       -- bin
         -- entr
       -- share
       -- doc
         -- entr
         -- NEWS.gz
         -- README.md
         -- changelog.Debian.gz
         -- copyright
       -- man
       -- man1
       -- entr.1.gz
     -- entr.debhelper.log
     -- entr.substvars
     -- files
     -- gbp.conf
     -- patches
       -- PR149-expand-aliases-in-system-test-script.patch
       -- series
       -- system-test-skip-no-tty.patch
       -- system-test-with-system-binary.patch
     -- rules
     -- salsa-ci.yml
     -- source
       -- format
     -- tests
       -- control
     -- upstream
       -- metadata
       -- signing-key.asc
     -- watch
   -- entr
   -- entr.1
   -- entr.c
   -- entr.o
   -- missing
     -- compat.h
     -- kqueue_inotify.c
     -- strlcpy.c
     -- sys
     -- event.h
   -- status.c
   -- status.h
   -- status.o
   -- system_test.sh
 -- entr-dbgsym_5.6-1_amd64.deb
 -- entr_5.6-1.debian.tar.xz
 -- entr_5.6-1.dsc
 -- entr_5.6-1_amd64.buildinfo
 -- entr_5.6-1_amd64.changes
 -- entr_5.6-1_amd64.deb
 -- entr_5.6.orig.tar.xz
The contents of debian/entr are essentially what goes into the resulting entr_5.6-1_amd64.deb package. Familiarizing yourself with the majority of the files in the original upstream source as well as all the resulting build artifacts is time consuming, but it is a necessary investment to get high-quality Debian packages. There are also tools such as Debcraft that automate generating the build artifacts in separate output directories for each build, thus making it easy to compare the changes to correlate what change in the Debian packaging led to what change in the resulting build artifacts.

Re-run the initial import with git-buildpackage When upstreams publish releases as tarballs, they should also be imported for optimal software supply-chain security, in particular if upstream also publishes cryptographic signatures that can be used to verify the authenticity of the tarballs. To achieve this, the files debian/watch, debian/upstream/signing-key.asc, and debian/gbp.conf need to be present with the correct options. In the gbp.conf file, ensure you have the correct options based on:
  1. Does upstream release tarballs? If so, enforce pristine-tar = True.
  2. Does upstream sign the tarballs? If so, configure explicit signature checking with upstream-signatures = on.
  3. Does upstream have a git repository, and does it have release git tags? If so, configure the release git tag format, e.g. upstream-vcs-tag = %(version%~%.)s.
To validate that the above files are working correctly, run gbp import-orig with the current version explicitly defined:
shell
$ gbp import-orig --uscan --upstream-version 5.6
gbp:info: Launching uscan...
gpgv: Signature made 7. Aug 2024 07.43.27 PDT
gpgv: using RSA key 519151D83E83D40A232B4D615C418B8631BC7C26
gpgv: Good signature from "Eric Radman <ericshane@eradman.com>"
gbp:info: Using uscan downloaded tarball ../entr_5.6.orig.tar.gz
gbp:info: Importing '../entr_5.6.orig.tar.gz' to branch 'upstream/latest'...
gbp:info: Source package is entr
gbp:info: Upstream version is 5.6
gbp:info: Replacing upstream source on 'debian/latest'
gbp:info: Running Postimport hook
gbp:info: Successfully imported version 5.6 of ../entr_5.6.orig.tar.gz
As the original packaging was done based on the upstream release git tag, the above command will fetch the tarball release, create the pristine-tar branch, and store the tarball delta on it. This command will also attempt to create the tag upstream/5.6 on the upstream/latest branch.

Import new upstream versions in the future Forking the upstream git repository, creating the initial packaging, and creating the DEP-14 branch structure are all one-off work needed only when creating the initial packaging. Going forward, to import new upstream releases, one would simply run git fetch upstreamvcs; gbp import-orig --uscan, which fetches the upstream git tags, checks for new upstream tarballs, and automatically downloads, verifies, and imports the new version. See the galera-4-demo example in the Debian source packages in git explained post as a demo you can try running yourself and examine in detail. You can also try running gbp import-orig --uscan without specifying a version. It would fetch it, as it will notice there is now Entr version 5.7 available, and import it.

Build using git-buildpackage From this stage onwards you should build the package using gbp buildpackage, which will do a more comprehensive build.
shell
gbp buildpackage -uc -us
The git-buildpackage build also includes running Lintian to find potential Debian policy violations in the sources or in the resulting .deb binary packages. Many Debian Developers run lintian -EviIL +pedantic after every build to check that there are no new nags, and to validate that changes intended to previous Lintian nags were correct.

Open a Merge Request on Salsa for Debian packaging review Getting everything perfectly right takes a lot of effort, and may require reaching out to an experienced Debian Developers for review and guidance. Thus, you should aim to publish your initial packaging work on Salsa, Debian s GitLab instance, for review and feedback as early as possible. For somebody to be able to easily see what you have done, you should rename your debian/latest branch to another name, for example next/debian/latest, and open a Merge Request that targets the debian/latest branch on your Salsa fork, which still has only the unmodified upstream files. If you have followed the workflow in this post so far, you can simply run:
  1. git checkout -b next/debian/latest
  2. git push --set-upstream origin next/debian/latest
  3. Open in a browser the URL visible in the git remote response
  4. Write the Merge Request description in case the default text from your commit is not enough
  5. Mark the MR as Draft using the checkbox
  6. Publish the MR and request feedback
Once a Merge Request exists, discussion regarding what additional changes are needed can be conducted as MR comments. With an MR, you can easily iterate on the contents of next/debian/latest, rebase, force push, and request re-review as many times as you want. While at it, make sure the Settings > CI/CD page has under CI/CD configuration file the value debian/salsa-ci.yml so that the CI can run and give you immediate automated feedback. For an example of an initial packaging Merge Request, see https://salsa.debian.org/otto/entr-demo/-/merge_requests/1.

Open a Merge Request / Pull Request to fix upstream code Due to the high quality requirements in Debian, it is fairly common that while doing the initial Debian packaging of an open source project, issues are found that stem from the upstream source code. While it is possible to carry extra patches in Debian, it is not good practice to deviate too much from upstream code with custom Debian patches. Instead, the Debian packager should try to get the fixes applied directly upstream. Using git-buildpackage patch queues is the most convenient way to make modifications to the upstream source code so that they automatically convert into Debian patches (stored at debian/patches), and can also easily be submitted upstream as any regular git commit (and rebased and resubmitted many times over). First, decide if you want to work out of the upstream development branch and later cherry-pick to the Debian packaging branch, or work out of the Debian packaging branch and cherry-pick to an upstream branch. The example below starts from the upstream development branch and then cherry-picks the commit into the git-buildpackage patch queue:
shell
git checkout -b bugfix-branch master
nano entr.c
make
./entr # verify change works as expected
git commit -a -m "Commit title" -m "Commit body"
git push # submit upstream
gbp pq import --force --time-machine=10
git cherry-pick <commit id>
git commit --amend # extend commit message with DEP-3 metadata
gbp buildpackage -uc -us -b
./entr # verify change works as expected
gbp pq export --drop --commit
git commit --amend # Write commit message along lines "Add patch to .."
The example below starts by making the fix on a git-buildpackage patch queue branch, and then cherry-picking it onto the upstream development branch:
shell
gbp pq import --force --time-machine=10
nano entr.c
git commit -a -m "Commit title" -m "Commit body"
gbp buildpackage -uc -us -b
./entr # verify change works as expected
gbp pq export --drop --commit
git commit --amend # Write commit message along lines "Add patch to .."
git checkout -b bugfix-branch master
git cherry-pick <commit id>
git commit --amend # prepare commit message for upstream submission
git push # submit upstream
The key git-buildpackage commands to enter and exit the patch-queue mode are:
shell
gbp pq import --force --time-machine=10
gbp pq export --drop --commit
%% init:   'gitGraph':   'mainBranchName': 'debian/latest'      %%
gitGraph
checkout debian/latest
commit id: "Initial packaging"
branch patch-queue/debian/latest
checkout patch-queue/debian/latest
commit id: "Delete debian/patches/..."
commit id: "Patch 1 title"
commit id: "Patch 2 title"
commit id: "Patch 3 title"
These can be run at any time, regardless if any debian/patches existed prior, or if existing patches applied cleanly or not, or if there were old patch queue branches around. Note that the extra -b in gbp buildpackage -uc -us -b instructs to build only binary packages, avoiding any nags from dpkg-source that there are modifications in the upstream sources while building in the patches-applied mode.

Programming-language specific dh-make alternatives As each programming language has its specific way of building the source code, and many other conventions regarding the file layout and more, Debian has multiple custom tools to create new Debian source packages for specific programming languages. Notably, Python does not have its own tool, but there is an dh_make --python option for Python support directly in dh_make itself. The list is not complete and many more tools exist. For some languages, there are even competing options, such as for Go there is in addition to dh-make-golang also Gophian. When learning Debian packaging, there is no need to learn these tools upfront. Being aware that they exist is enough, and one can learn them only if and when one starts to package a project in a new programming language.

The difference between source git repository vs source packages vs binary packages As seen in earlier example, running gbp buildpackage on the Entr packaging repository above will result in several files:
entr_5.6-1_amd64.changes
entr_5.6-1_amd64.deb
entr_5.6-1.debian.tar.xz
entr_5.6-1.dsc
entr_5.6.orig.tar.gz
entr_5.6.orig.tar.gz.asc
The entr_5.6-1_amd64.deb is the binary package, which can be installed on a Debian/Ubuntu system. The rest of the files constitute the source package. To do a source-only build, run gbp buildpackage -S and note the files produced:
entr_5.6-1_source.changes
entr_5.6-1.debian.tar.xz
entr_5.6-1.dsc
entr_5.6.orig.tar.gz
entr_5.6.orig.tar.gz.asc
The source package files can be used to build the binary .deb for amd64, or any architecture that the package supports. It is important to grasp that the Debian source package is the preferred form to be able to build the binary packages on various Debian build systems, and the Debian source package is not the same thing as the Debian packaging git repository contents.
flowchart LR
git[Git repository<br>branch debian/latest] --> gbp buildpackage -S  src[Source Package<br>.dsc + .tar.xz]
src --> dpkg-buildpackage  bin[Binary Packages<br>.deb]
If the package is large and complex, the build could result in multiple binary packages. One set of package definition files in debian/ will however only ever result in a single source package.

Option to repackage source packages with Files-Excluded lists in the debian/copyright file Some upstream projects may include binary files in their release, or other undesirable content that needs to be omitted from the source package in Debian. The easiest way to filter them out is by adding to the debian/copyright file a Files-Excluded field listing the undesired files. The debian/copyright file is read by uscan, which will repackage the upstream sources on-the-fly when importing new upstream releases. For a real-life example, see the debian/copyright files in the Godot package that lists:
debian
Files-Excluded: platform/android/java/gradle/wrapper/gradle-wrapper.jar
The resulting repackaged upstream source tarball, as well as the upstream version component, will have an extra +ds to signify that it is not the true original upstream source but has been modified by Debian:
godot_4.3+ds.orig.tar.xz
godot_4.3+ds-1_amd64.deb

Creating one Debian source package from multiple upstream source packages also possible In some rare cases the upstream project may be split across multiple git repositories or the upstream release may consist of multiple components each in their own separate tarball. Usually these are very large projects that get some benefits from releasing components separately. If in Debian these are deemed to go into a single source package, it is technically possible using the component system in git-buildpackage and uscan. For an example see the gbp.conf and watch files in the node-cacache package. Using this type of structure should be a last resort, as it creates complexity and inter-dependencies that are bound to cause issues later on. It is usually better to work with upstream and champion universal best practices with clear releases and version schemes.

When not to start the Debian packaging repository as a fork of the upstream one Not all upstreams use Git for version control. It is by far the most popular, but there are still some that use e.g. Subversion or Mercurial. Who knows maybe in the future some new version control systems will start to compete with Git. There are also projects that use Git in massive monorepos and with complex submodule setups that invalidate the basic assumptions required to map an upstream Git repository into a Debian packaging repository. In those cases one can t use a debian/latest branch on a clone of the upstream git repository as the starting point for the Debian packaging, but one must revert the traditional way of starting from an upstream release tarball with gbp import-orig package-1.0.tar.gz.

Conclusion Created in August 1993, Debian is one of the oldest Linux distributions. In the 32 years since inception, the .deb packaging format and the tooling to work with it have evolved several generations. In the past 10 years, more and more Debian Developers have converged on certain core practices evidenced by https://trends.debian.net/, but there is still a lot of variance in workflows even for identical tasks. Hopefully, you find this post useful in giving practical guidance on how exactly to do the most common things when packaging software for Debian. Happy packaging!

Valhalla's Things: Honeycomb shirt

Posted on May 25, 2025
Tags: madeof:atoms, craft:sewing, FreeSoftWear, GNU Terry Pratchett
A woman wearing a purplish blue shirt with very wide sleeves, gathered at the cuffs and shoulder with honeycombing, and also a rectangle of honeycombing in the front between the neckline and just above the bust. The shirt is gathered at the waist with a wide belt, and an almost lilac towel hangs from the belt. After cartridge pleating, the next fabric manipulation technique I wanted to try was smocking, of the honeycombing variety, on a shirt. My current go-to pattern for shirts is the 1880 menswear one I have on my website: I love the fact that most of the fabric is still cut as big rectangles, but the shaped yoke and armscyes make it significantly more comfortable than the earlier style where most of the shaping at the neck was done with gathers into a straight collar. A woman wearing a shirt in the same fabric; this one has a slit in the front, is gathered into a tall rectangular collar and has dropped shoulders because it's cut from plain rectangles. The sleeves are still huge, and gathered into tall cuffs. It is worn belted (with the same wide white elastic belt used in the previous picture) and the woman is wearing a matching fabric mask, because the picture has been taken in 2021. In my stash I had a cut of purple-blue hopefully cotton [#cotton] I had bought for a cheap price and used for my first attempt at an historically accurate pirate / vampire shirt that has now become by official summer vaccine jab / blood test shirt (because it has the long sleeves I need, but they are pretty easy to roll up to give access to my arm. That shirt tends to get out of the washing machine pretty wearable even without ironing, which made me think it could be a good fabric for something that may be somewhat hard to iron (but also made me suspicious about the actual composition of the fabric, even if it feels nice enough even when worn in the summer). A piece of fabric with many rows of honeycombing laid on top of the collar and yoke of the shirt; a metal snap peeks from behind the piece of honeycombed fabric.  There are still basting lines for the armscyes. Of course I wanted some honeycombing on the front, but I was afraid that the slit in the middle of it would interfere with the honeycombing and gape, so I decided to have the shirt open in an horizontal line at the yoke. I added instructions to the pattern page for how I changed the opening in the front, basically it involved finishing the front edge of the yoke, and sewing the honeycombed yoke to a piece of tape with snaps. Another change from the pattern is that I used plain rectangles for the sleeves, and a square gusset, rather than the new style tapered sleeve , because I wanted to have more fabric to gather at the wrist. I did the side and sleeve seams with a hem + whipstitch method rather than a felled seam, which may have helped, but the sleeves went into the fitted armscyes with no issue. I think that if (yeah, right. when) I ll make another sleeve in this style I ll sew it into the side seam starting 2-3 cm lower than the place I ve marked on the pattern for the original sleeve. The back of the unbelted shirt: it has a fitted yoke, and then it is quite wide and unfitted, with the fabric gathered into the yoke with a row of honeycombing and some pleating on top. I also used a row of honeycombing on the back and two on the upper part of the sleeves, instead of the gathering, and of course some rows to gather the cuffs. The honeycombing on the back was a bit too far away from the edge, so it s a bit of an odd combination of honeycombing and pleating that I don t hate, but don t love either. It s on the back, so I don t mind. On the sleeves I ve done the honeycombing closer to the edge and I ve decided to sew the sleeve as if it was a cartridge pleated sleeve, and that worked better. Because circumstances are still making access to my sewing machine more of a hassle than I d want it to be, this was completely sewn by hand, and at a bit more than a month I have to admit that near the end it felt like it had been taken forever. I m not sure whether it was the actual sewing being slow, some interruptions that happened when I had little time to work on it, or the fact that I ve just gone through a time when my brain kept throwing new projects at me, and I kept thinking of how to make those. Thanks brain. Even when on a hurry to finish it, however, it was still enjoyable sewing, and I think I ll want to do more honeycombing in the future. The same woman with arms wide to show the big sleeves and the shirt unbelted to show that it is pretty wide also from the front, below the yoke and the honeycombing. The back can be seen as about 10 cm longer than the front. Anyway, it s done! And it s going straight into my daily garment rotation, because the weather is getting hot, and that means it s definitely shirt time.

24 May 2025

Bits from Debian: New Debian Developers and Maintainers (March and April 2025)

The following contributors got their Debian Developer accounts in the last two months: The following contributor was added as Debian Maintainer in the last two months: Congratulations!

Next.

Previous.