Raphaël Hertzog: People behind Debian: Philipp Kern, Stable Release Manager
Philipp is a Debian developer since 2005 and a member of the release team since 2008. Since he took the responsibility of Stable Release Manager, the process has evolved for the best. I asked him to explain how the release team decides what s fit for stable or not.
His work on the buildd infrastructure is also admirable but I ll let him describe that. My questions are in bold, the rest is by Philipp.
Who are you?
I m a 24 year old Computer Science student, living in Karlsruhe,
Germany. As a student assistant I m currently in two jobs:
one is taking care of getting our university IPv6 network in shape,
or rather generally getting fringe technologies into the network. The
second is taking care of a s390x machine in the basement which my
faculty got sponsored recently. In my spare time I tend my Debian
duties and I m active in the student council (Fachschaft) as a
sys-admin, software developer and until recently as treasurer.
I got accepted as a Debian Developer in 2005. I m only really active
since I was invited to join the Release Team in early 2008 after I
contributed rewrites of some scripts that got lost in a disk crash of
ftp-master. In late 2008 I also took on wanna-build/buildd duties.
What s your notable achievement within Debian?
For one I worked on the deployment of a single buildd/sbuild
combination over all of our buildds and I rebased it on the sbuild
in the archive several times already. All buildds basically look
the same on all architectures, with only few variations. The
chroots are now also created in a mostly predictable manner.
Then we finally got build autosigning after years of constant poking.
However the policy decision to allow it was made by the ftp-masters
anyway, for which I m grateful, as it eases the workload of the
buildd maintainers, the Security Team and the Release Team quite
a bit.
On the release side there s the integration of volatile into
the proper structures of Debian. But there I m guilty for choosing
the bad name squeeze-updates is, in comparision with security s
squeeze/updates. Let s see if we can improve that for wheezy.
The policy for stable updates have changed over time. Can you summarize what kind of updates are allowed nowadays?
All the changes that were made to the policy were driven by the
aim to keep stable (and to some lesser degree oldstable) usable
throughout its lifetime.
I have to admit that we got slightly more liberal in what we accept
since I took over. The previous stable update policy included the
fixes of critical bugs that break the system in interesting ways and
security fixes. We also opened up the possibility of including
important fixes for annoying bugs on a case-by-case basis.
The whole don t update that much part of the stable release
management is rooted in let s don t change the behaviour of a
running system and let s have as few regressions as possible .
We currently try to counter that with a review process that only
allows self-contained fixes that were tested in unstable first,
if applicable.
In the future I d also like to have a feedback process
that includes the users of the packages to report problems more early.
In fact that s also why we now send calls for testing to
debian-stable-announce one week in advance (see this
mail as an example).
So stable is updated through point releases that happen roughly
every two months for stable and roughly every four for oldstable.
They are accompanied by announcements and new CD/DVD sets.
To be able to push some updates with less delay to our users
and to avoid that they have to pick them from proposed-updates,
there is stable-updates. The current policy for this
suite is available in this
post on debian-devel-announce. It boils down to everything urgent
like tzdata, regression fixes and volatile packages. We noticed that
some packages in stable just weren t useful anymore when they got
updated through volatile. Hence those are folded into stable, too.
We also relaxed the rules a bit so that leaf packages like clive,
that rely on external websites not to change their URLs, can
be updated too.
If somebody wonders what happened to the and a half releases Those
were intended to mark the inclusion of new hardware support (mostly by
including a co-installable new kernel version). This kind of flag
point release is thankfully no longer needed because our marvellous
kernel team now backports certain hardware drivers to the kernel
version in stable. They have some trouble soliciting test feedback
for them, though. It would be cool if more people using stable
could respond to their calls for testing.
What are your plans for Debian Wheezy?
Luckily the wanna-build/buildd side isn t much dependent on release
cycles. The stable release management also just takes care
of what gets dumped on them by the testing RMs. - getting d-i to use some development process in the archive that s compatible with the normal flow of packages into testing and
- hopefully getting wanna-build to use a sane SQL layout and hence better performance
Thank you to Philipp for the time spent answering my questions. I hope you enjoyed reading his answers as I did. Subscribe to my newsletter to get my monthly summary of the Debian/Ubuntu news and to not miss further interviews. You can also follow along on Identi.ca, Twitter and Facebook.
3 comments Liked this article? Click here. My blog is Flattr-enabled.
Earlier this year, I agreed to join the board of

Since my laptop features
We downloaded a total of 8
I have been
Doing some work towards Debian Rolling
At the start of the month, the discussions about Debian rolling were still very active on debian-devel. Declaring that testing would be rolling did not make it (as
So I just read that

You'd think it'd be easy to reboot a PC, wouldn't you? But then you'd also think that it'd be straightforward to convince people that at least making some effort to be nice to each other would be a mutually beneficial proposal, and look how well that's worked for us.
I m proud to be able to announce a new stable release of
Identity checks and trust
The OpenPGP web of trust is composed of keys linked to each other by two
things:
There is a complain I have heard several times from people after they
installed Debian: I use Icedove/Thunderbird so I do not need Evolution: I
tried to remove it but this would remove my whole system, that sucks! Explanation
The reason behind this situation is that GNOME is installed by a
meta-package, which is a dummy package that depends on each component of the
official GNOME desktop, including Evolution. So it got installed as a
dependency of that dummy package. This means that you, or rather, the Debian
installer, never asked explicitly to install either Evolution or any other
specific software: it came automatically.
Now, you want to remove Evolution: very well, but this implies removing the
meta-package, as you are removing one of its dependencies. But if you are
removing this meta-package, there is no reason to keep all this software you
did not asked for, so, as they got installed automatically, they are now
removed automatically as well
The solution
So, do you still want to remove Evolution but keep the remaining of your
GNOME desktop? Of course you will not keep GNOME , because GNOME includes
Evolution, so strictly speaking GNOME without Evolution is not GNOME
any more.
Well, there is a solution: marking all the dependencies of the meta-package
as manually installed, that is, faking that you installed them explicitly
Aptitude is able to do that with its powerful search functions:
long time no post about my RC bug fixing activities. & indeed, I haven't
been very active during the last weeks. here's a quick update; it includes
two NMUs done for the perl 5.12 transition, the rest is just
"normal" maintainance work (interesting to see how much stuff can
break behind our backs ...).
Here is the configuration that I bought: