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.

• [1] https://simonwillison.net/2025/Apr/11/camel/

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. 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

• Closed over a dozen long-standing bugs, including:
  • Outdated version requests
  • Missing shell completions
  • VCS (version control system) metadata issues
  • (#1055411, #990793, #1009356, #1016441, #1086756, #1047881, #832706, #976428, #994438)

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. 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.

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. 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

• Closed over a dozen long-standing bugs, including:
  • Outdated version requests
  • Missing shell completions
  • VCS (version control system) metadata issues
  • (#1055411, #990793, #1009356, #1016441, #1086756, #1047881, #832706, #976428, #994438)

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. 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.

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:

• Passport
• My photograph (35 mm x 45 mm)
• Visa application form (Form 14A)
• Cover letter to the Singapore High Commission, New Delhi
• Proof of employment
• Hotel booking
• Flight ticket (reservations are sufficient)
• Bank account statement for the last 6 months

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.

Trying to send email. Email is hard. Configuration is hard. I don't remember how I send email properly. Trying to use git send-email since ages, and I think I am getting email bounces from random lists. SPF failure. Oh now.

In 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:

• Using a Git fork/clone of the upstream repository as the starting point for creating Debian packaging repositories.
• Consistent use of the same git-buildpackage commands, with all package-specific options in gbp.conf.
• DEP-14 tag and branch names for an optimal Git packaging repository structure.
• Pristine-tar and upstream signatures for supply-chain security.
• Use of Files-Excluded in the debian/copyright file to filter out unwanted files in Debian.
• Patch queues to easily rebase and cherry-pick changes across Debian and upstream branches.
• Efficient use of Salsa, Debian s GitLab instance, for both automated feedback from CI systems and human feedback from peer reviews.

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 Copy

mkdir debian-entr cd debian-entr git clone --origin upstreamvcs --branch master \ --single-branch https://github.com/eradman/entr.git

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 Copy

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

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 Copy

git remote add origin git@salsa.debian.org:otto/entr-demo.git git push --set-upstream origin debian/latest

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 Copy

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

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 Copy

apt update -q && apt install -q --yes git-buildpackage dpkg-dev dh-make

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 Copy

# 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.

# 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 Copy

git add debian/ git commit -a -m "Initial Debian packaging"

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:

Copy

-- 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

 -- 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 Copy

$ 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

$ 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 Copy

dpkg-depcheck -b debian/rules build

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 Copy

dpkg-buildpackage -uc -us -b

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 Copy

$ 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

$ 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 Copy

-- 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

 -- 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 Copy

$ 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

$ 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 Copy

gbp buildpackage -uc -us

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 Copy

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 .."

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 Copy

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

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 Copy

gbp pq import --force --time-machine=10 gbp pq export --drop --commit

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.

• Go: dh-make-golang
• Haskell: cabal-debian
• Java: jh_makepkg
• JavaScript/Node.js: npm2deb
• Lua: dh-lua
• OCaml: dh-ocaml
• Perl: dh-make-perl
• PHP: pkg-php-tools
• Ruby: gem2deb

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:

Copy

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

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:

Copy

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

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 Copy

Files-Excluded: platform/android/java/gradle/wrapper/gradle-wrapper.jar

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:

Copy

godot_4.3+ds.orig.tar.xz godot_4.3+ds-1_amd64.deb

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!

In 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:

• Using a Git fork/clone of the upstream repository as the starting point for creating Debian packaging repositories.
• Consistent use of the same git-buildpackage commands, with all package-specific options in gbp.conf.
• DEP-14 tag and branch names for an optimal Git packaging repository structure.
• Pristine-tar and upstream signatures for supply-chain security.
• Use of Files-Excluded in the debian/copyright file to filter out unwanted files in Debian.
• Patch queues to easily rebase and cherry-pick changes across Debian and upstream branches.
• Efficient use of Salsa, Debian s GitLab instance, for both automated feedback from CI systems and human feedback from peer reviews.

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 Copy

mkdir debian-entr cd debian-entr git clone --origin upstreamvcs --branch master \ --single-branch https://github.com/eradman/entr.git

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 Copy

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

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 Copy

git remote add origin git@salsa.debian.org:otto/entr-demo.git git push --set-upstream origin debian/latest

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 Copy

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

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 Copy

apt update -q && apt install -q --yes git-buildpackage dpkg-dev dh-make

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 Copy

# 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.

# 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 Copy

git add debian/ git commit -a -m "Initial Debian packaging"

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:

Copy

-- 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

 -- 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 Copy

$ 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

$ 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 Copy

dpkg-depcheck -b debian/rules build

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 Copy

dpkg-buildpackage -uc -us -b

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 Copy

$ 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

$ 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 Copy

-- 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

 -- 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 Copy

$ 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

$ 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 Copy

gbp buildpackage -uc -us

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 Copy

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 .."

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 Copy

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

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 Copy

gbp pq import --force --time-machine=10 gbp pq export --drop --commit

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.

• Go: dh-make-golang
• Haskell: cabal-debian
• Java: jh_makepkg
• JavaScript/Node.js: npm2deb
• Lua: dh-lua
• OCaml: dh-ocaml
• Perl: dh-make-perl
• PHP: pkg-php-tools
• Ruby: gem2deb

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:

Copy

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

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:

Copy

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

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 Copy

Files-Excluded: platform/android/java/gradle/wrapper/gradle-wrapper.jar

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:

Copy

godot_4.3+ds.orig.tar.xz godot_4.3+ds-1_amd64.deb

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!

I have been a very happy user of my two SK-8845 keyboards (one at my office, one at home) since I bought them, in 2018 and 2021 respectively. What are they, mind you? ) The beautiful keyboard every Thinkpad owner knows and loves. And although I no longer use my X230 laptop that was my workhorse for several years, my fingers are spoiled. So, both shift keys of my home keyboard have been getting flaky, and I am basically sure it s a failure in the controller, as it does not feel to be physical. It s time to revisit that seven year old post where I found the SK-8845. This time, I decided to try my luck with something different. As a Emacs user, everybody knows we ought to be happy with more and more keys. In fact, I suppose many international people are now familiar with El Eternauta, true? we Emacs users would be the natural ambassadors to deal with the hand species: So it kind-of sort-of made sense, when I saw a Toshiba-IBM keyboard being sold for quite cheap (MX$400, just over US$20) to try my luck with it: This is quite an odd piece of hardware, built in 2013 according to its label. At first I was unsure whether to buy it because of the weird interface it had, but the vendor replied they would ship a (very long!) USB cable with it, so As expected, connecting it to Linux led to a swift, errorless recognition: Within minutes of receiving the hardware, I had it hooked up and started looking at the events it generated However the romance soon started to wane. Some of the reasons:

• We cannot forget it is a Piece of Shit Point Of Sale keyboard. It is not intended to be a creative interface. So, the keys are ~75% the size of regular keys. My fingers have a hard time getting used to it, I keep hitting wrong keys. I know I am holding it wrong and my muscle memory can be retrained (and I was very happy when I had the tiny 9 Acer Aspire One) but still, it is not pleasant.
• I exclusively use keyboards with a trackpad (as those found in most laptops) because I found that constantly moving my hand to the mouse and back produced me back ache. Within an hour of typing in this keyboard, the old back ache I was happy not to ever have again came back to me.
• The pointer device has a left and a right button, but neither middle nor scroll buttons. I could generate middle clicks by setting middle emulation enabled, but the buttons are separated it requires clicking with both thumbs, which is unelegant, to say the least. I remapped some of the spare keys to be mouse buttons 1 5, and it worked for middle click, but not for scroll events. Maybe I could tweak it a bit more but I didn t in the end.

Anyway I m returning it I found an SK-8845 for sale in China for just MX$1814 (~US$90), and jumped for it They are getting scarce! Nowadays it s getting more common (and cheaper) to find the newer style Thinkpad keyboards, but without a trackpad I don t think I should stockpile on keyboards, but no, I m not doing that Anyway, so I m sticking to a Thinkpad keyboard, third in a row.

Don t knock the fence down before you know why it s up. I repeat this phrase over and over again, yet the (metaphorical) Homeowner s Association still decides my fence is the wrong color.Well, now you get to know why the fence is up. If anyone s actually willing to challenge me on this level, I d welcome it.The four ideas I d like to discuss are this: quantum physics, Lutheranism, mental resilience, and psychology. I ve been studying these topics intensely for the past decade as a passion project. I m just going to let my thoughts flow, but I d like to hear other opinions on this.Can the mysteries of the mind, the subatomic world, and faith converge to reveal deeper truths?When it comes to self-taught knowledge on analysis, I m mostly learned on Freud, with some hints of Jung and Peterson. I ve read much of the original source material, and watched countless presentations on it. This all being said, I m both learned on Rothbard and Marx, so if there is a major flaw in the way of Freud is frowned upon, I d genuinely like to know so I can update my research and juxtapose the two schools of thought.Alongside this, although probably not directly relevant, I m learned on John Locke and transcendentalism. What I d like to focus on here is this the Id.The Id is the pleasure-seeking, instinctual part of the psyche. Jung further extends this into the idea of the shadow self, and Peterson maps the meanings of these texts into a combined work (at least in my rudimentary understanding).In my research, the Id represents the part of your psyche that deals with religious values. As an example, if you re an impulsive person, turning to a spiritual or religious outlet can be highly beneficial. I ve been using references from the foundational text of the Judaeo-Christian value system this entire time, feel free to re-read my other blog posts (instead of claiming they don t exist).Let s tie this into quantum physics. This is the part where I ll struggle most. I ve watched several movies about this, read several books, and even learned about it academically, but quantum physics is likely to be my weak spot here.I did some research, and here are the elements I m looking for: uncertainty principle, wave-particle duality, quantum entanglement, and the observer effect.I already know about the cat in the box. And the Cat in the Hat, for that matter. I know about wave-particle duality from an incredibly intelligent high school physics teacher of mine. I know about the uncertainty principle purely in a colloquial sense. The remaining element I need to wrap my head around is quantum entanglement, but it feels like I m almost there.These concepts do actually challenge the idea of pure free will. It s almost like we re coming full circle. Some theologians (including myself, if you can call me a self-taught one) do believe the idea of quantum indeterminacy can be a space where divine action may take place. You could also liken the unpredictable nature of the Id to quantum indeterminacy as well. These are ones to think about, because in all reality, they re subjective opinions. I do believe they re interconnected.In terms of Lutheranism, I ll be short on this one. Please do go read the full history behind Martin Luther and his turbulent relationship with Catholicism. I m not a Bible thumper, and I actually think this is the first time I ve mentioned religion publicly at all. This being said, now I m actually ready to defend the points on an academic level.The Id represents hidden psychological forces, quantum physics reveals subatomic mysteries, and Lutheranism emphasizes faith in the unseen God. Okay, so we have the baseline. Now, time for some mental resilience. When I think of mental resilience, the first people I think of are David Goggins and Jocko Willink. I ve also enjoyed Dr. Andrew Huberman s podcast.The idea there is simple if you understand exactly how to learn, you know your fundamentals well enough to draw them and explain them vividly on a whiteboard, and you can make it a habit, at that point you re ready to work on your mental resilience. Little by little, gradually, how far can you push the bar towards the ceiling?There s obviously limits. People sometimes get scared when I mention mental resilience, but obviously that s a bit of a catch 22. There are plenty of satirical videos out there, and of course, I don t believe in Goggins or Jocko wholeheartedly. They re just tools in the toolbox when times get tough.I wish you all well, and I hope this gets you thinking about those people who just insist there is no God or higher being, and think you re stupid for believing there is one. Those people obviously haven t read analysis, in my own opinion.Have a great night!

Running Your Own Email Srever I run my own mail server. I have run it since about 1995, initially on a 28k8 modem connection but the connection improved as technology became cheaper and now I m running it on a VM on a Hetzner server which is also running domains for some small businesses. I make a small amount of money running mail services for those companies but generally not enough to make it profitable. From a strictly financial basis I might be better off just using a big service, but I like having control over my own email. If email doesn t arrive I can read the logs to find out why. I repeatedly have issues of big services not accepting mail. The most recent is the MS services claiming that my IP has a bad ratio of good mail to spam and blocked me so I had to tunnel that through a different IP address. It seems that the way things are going is that if you run a small server companies like MS can block you even though your amount of spam is low but if you run a large scale service that is horrible for sending spam then you don t get blocked. For most users they just use one of the major email services (Gmail or Microsoft) and find that no-one blocks them because those providers are too big to block and things mostly work. Until of course the company decides to cancel their account. The Latest News The latest news is that MS is shutting down services for the International Court of Justice after a panel of ICC judges issued arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu [1] . This is now making politicians realise the issues of email accounts hosted outside their jurisdiction. What we need is for each independent jurisdiction to have it s own email infrastructure, that means controlling DNS servers for their domains, commercial and government mail services on those domains, running the servers for those services on hardware located in the jurisdiction and run by people based in that jurisdiction and citizens of it. I say independent jurisdiction because there are groups like the EU which have sufficient harmony of laws to not require different services. With the current EU arrangements I don t think it s possible for the German government to block French people from accessing email or vice versa. While Australia and New Zealand have a long history of cooperation there s still the possibility of a lying asshole like Scott Morrison trying something on so New Zealanders shouldn t feel safe using services run in Australia. Note that Scott Morrison misled his own parliamentary colleagues about what he was doing and got himself assigned as a secret minister [2] demonstrating that even conservatives can t trust someone like him. With the ongoing human rights abuses by the Morrison government it s easy to imagine New Zealand based organisations that protect human rights being treated by the Australian government in the way that the ICC was treated by the US government. The Problem with Partial Solutions Now it would be very easy for the ICC to host their own mail servers and they probably will do just that in the near future. I m sure that there are many companies offering to set them up accounts in a hurry to deal with this (probably including some of the Dutch companies I ve worked for). Let s imagine for the sake of discussion that the ICC has their own private server, the US government could compel Google and MS to block the IP addresses of that server and then at least 1/3 of the EU population won t get mail from them. If the ICC used email addresses hosted on someone else s server then Google and MS could be compelled to block the addresses in question for the same result. The ICC could have changing email addresses to get around block lists and there could be a game of cat and mouse between the ICC and the US government but that would just be annoying for everyone. The EU needs to have services hosted and run in their jurisdiction that are used by the vast majority of the people in the country. The more people who are using services outside the control of hostile governments the lesser the impact of bad IT policies by those hostile governments. One possible model to consider is the Postbank model. Postbank is a bank run in the Netherlands from post offices which provides services to people deemed unprofitable for the big banks. If the post offices were associated with a mail service you could have it government subsidised providing free service for citizens and using government ID if the user forgets their password. You could also have it provide a cheap service for non-citizen residents. Other Problems What will the US government do next? Will they demand that Apple and Google do a remote-wipe on all phones run by ICC employees? Are they currently tracking all ICC employees by Android and iPhone services? Huawei s decision to develop their own phone OS was a reasonable one but there s no need to go that far. Other governments could setup their own equivalent to Google Play services for Android and have their own localised Android build. Even a small country like Australia could get this going for the services of calendaring etc. But the app store needs a bigger market. There s no reason why Android has to tie the app store to the services for calendaring etc. So you could have a per country system for calendaring and a per region system for selling apps. The invasion of Amazon services such as Alexa is also a major problem for digital sovereignty. We need government controls about this sort of thing, maybe have high tariffs on the import of all hardware that can only work with a single cloud service. Have 100+% tariffs on every phone, home automation system, or networked device that is either tied to a single cloud service or which can t work in a usable manner on other cloud services.

• [1] https://tinyurl.com/yneduykr
• [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Morrison_ministerial_positions_controversy

In my home state of Wisconsin, there is an incredibly popular gas station called Kwik Trip. (Not to be confused with Quik Trip.) It is legitimately one of the best gas stations I ve ever been to, and I m a frequent customer.What makes it that great?Well, everything about it. The store is clean, the lights work, the staff are always friendly (and encourage you to come back next time), there s usually bakery on sale (just depends on location etc), and the list goes on.There s even a light-switch in the bathroom of a large amount of locations that you can flip if a janitor needs to attend to things. It actually does set off an alarm in the back room.A dear friend of mine from Wisconsin once told me something along the lines of, it s inaccurate to call Kwik Trip a gas station, because in all reality, it s a five star restaurant. (M , I hope you re well.)In my own opinion, they have an espresso machine. That s what really matters. ;)I mentioned the discount bakery. In reality, it s a pretty great system. To my limited understanding, the bakery that is older than standard but younger than expiry are set to half price and put towards the front of the store. In my personal experience, the vast majority of the time, the quality is still amazing. In fact, even if it isn t, the people working at Kwik Trip seem to genuinely enjoy their job.When you re looking at that discount rack of bakery, what do you choose? A personal favorite of mine is the banana nut bread with frosting on top. (To the non-Americans, yes, it does taste like it s homemade, it doesn t taste like something made in a factory.)Everyone chooses different bakery items. And honestly, there could be different discount items out depending on the time. You take what you can get, but you still have your own preferences. You like a specific type of donut (custard-filled, or maybe jelly-filled). Frosting, sprinkles there are so many ways to make different bakery items.It s not only art, it s kind of a science too.Is there a Kwik Trip that you ve called a gas station instead of a five star restaurant? Do you also want to tell people about your gas station? Do you only pick certain bakery items off the discount rack, or maybe ignore it completely? (And yes, there would be good reason to ignore the bakery in favor of the Hot Spot, I d consider that acceptable in my personal opinion.)Remember, sometimes you just have to like donuts.https://medium.com/media/73f78efd7bd6bb9ce495c2f08428c7d3/hrefHave a sweet day. :)

Toolboxes and Hammers Be YouEveryone has a story. We all started from somewhere, and we re all going somewhere.Ten years ago this summer, I first heard of Ubuntu. It took me time to learn how to properly pronounce the word, although I m glad I learned that early on. I was less fortunate when it came to the pronunciation of the acronym for the Ubuntu Code of Conduct. I had spent time and time again breaking my computer, and I d wanted to start fresh.I ve actually talked about this in an interview before, which you can find here (skip to 5:02 6:12 for my short explanation, I m in orange):https://medium.com/media/ad59becdbd06d230b875fb1512df1921/hrefI ve also done a few interviews over the years, here are some of the more recent ones:https://medium.com/media/83bda448d5f2a979f848e17f04376aa6/hrefAsk Noah Show 377Lastly, I did a few talks at SCaLE 21x (which the Ubuntu community donation funds helped me attend, thank you for that!):https://medium.com/media/0fbde7ef0ed83c2272a8653a5ea38b67/hrefhttps://medium.com/media/4d18f1770dc7eed6c7a9d711ff6a6e89/hrefMy story is fairly simple to summarize, if you don t have the time to go through all the clips.I started in the Ubuntu project at 13 years old, as a middle school student living in Green Bay, WI. I m now 23 years old, still living in Green Bay, but I became an Ubuntu Core Developer, Lubuntu s Release Manager, and worked up to a very great and comfortable spot.So, Simon, what advice would you give to someone at 13 who wants to do the same thing? Here are a few tips * Don t be afraid to be yourself. If you put on a mask, it hinders your growth, and you ll end up paying for it later anyway.
* Find a mentor. Someone who is okay working with someone your age, and ideally someone who works well with people your age (quick shoutout to Aaron Prisk and Walter Lapchynski for always being awesome to me and other folks starting out at high school.) This is probably the most important part.
* Ask questions. Tons of them. Ask questions until you re blue in the face. Ask questions until you get a headache so bad that your weekend needs to come early. Okay, maybe don t go that far, but at the very least, always stay curious.
* Own up to your mistakes. Even the most experienced people you know have made tons of mistakes. It s not about the mistake itself, it s about how you handle it and grow as a person.Now, after ten years, I ve seen many people come and go in Ubuntu. I was around for the transition from upstart to systemd. I was around for the transition from Unity to GNOME. I watched Kubuntu as a flavor recover from the arguments only a few years before I first started, only to jump in and help years later when the project started to trend downwards again.I have deep love, respect, and admiration for Ubuntu and its community. I also have deep love, respect, and admiration for Canonical as a company. It s all valuable work. That being said, I need to recognize where my own limits are, and it s not what you d think. This isn t some big burnout rant.Some of you may have heard rumors about an argument between me and the Ubuntu Community Council. I refuse to go into the private details of that, but what I ll tell you is this in retrospect, it was in good faith. The entire thing, from both my end and theirs, was to try to either help me as a person, or the entire community. If you think any part of this was bad faith from either side, you re fooling yourself. Plus, tons of great work and stories actually came out of this.The Ubuntu Community Council really does care. And so does Mark Shuttleworth.Now, I won t go into many specifics. If you want specifics, I d direct you to the Ubuntu Community Council who would be more than happy to answer any questions (actually they d probably stay silent. Nevermind.) That being said, I can t really talk about any of this without mentioning how great Mark has become.Remember, I was around for a few different major changes within the project. I ve heard and seen stories about Mark that actually match what Reddit says about him. But in 2025, out of the bottom of my heart, I m here to tell you that you re all wrong now.See, Mark didn t just side with somebody and be done with it. He actually listened, and I could tell, he cares very very deeply. I really enjoyed reading ogra s recent blog post, you should seriously check it out. Of course, I m only 23 years old, but I have to say, my experiences with Mark match that too.Now, as for what happens from here. I m taking a year off from Ubuntu. I talked this over with a wide variety of people, and I think it s the right decision. People who know me personally know that I m not one to make a major decision like this without a very good reason to. Well, I d like to share my reasons with you, because I think they d help.People who contribute time to open source find it to be very rewarding. Sometimes so rewarding, in fact, that no matter how many economics and finance books they read, they still haven t figured out how to balance that with a job that pays money. I m sure everyone deeply involved in this space has had the urge to quit their job at least once or twice to pursue their passions.Here s the other element too I ve had a handful of romantic relationships before, and they ve never really panned out. I found the woman that I truly believe I m going to marry. Is it going to be a rough road ahead of us? Absolutely, and to be totally honest, there is still a (small, at this point) chance it doesn t work out.That being said I remain optimistic. I m not taking a year off because I m in some kind of trouble. I haven t burned any bridge here except for one.You know who you are. You need help. I d be happy to reconnect with you once you realize that it s not okay to do what you did. An apology letter is all I want. I don t want Mutually Assured Destruction, I don t want to sit and battle on this for years on end. Seriously dude, just back off. Please.I hate having to take out the large hammer. But sometimes, you just have to do it. I ve quite enjoyed Louis Rossmann s (very not-safe-for-work) videos on BwE.https://medium.com/media/ab64411c41e65317f271058f56bb2aba/hrefI genuinely enjoy being nice to people. I want to see everyone be successful and happy, in that order (but with both being very important). I m not perfect, I m a 23-year-old who just happened to stumble into this space at the right time.To this specific person only, I tell you, please, let me go take my year off in peace. I don t wish you harm, and I won t make anything public, including your name, if you just back off.Whew. Okay. Time to be happy again.Again, I want to see people succeed. That goes for anyone in Ubuntu, Lubuntu, Kubuntu, Canonical, you name it. I m going to remain detached from Ubuntu for at least a year. If circumstances change, or if I feel the timing just isn t right, I ll wait longer. My point is, I ll be back, the when of it will just never be public before it happens.In the meantime, you re welcome to reach out to me. It ll take me some time to bootstrap things, more than I originally thought, but I m hoping it ll be quick. After all, I ve had practice.I m also going to continue writing. About what? I don t know yet.But, I ll just keep writing. I want to share all of the useful tips I ve learned over the years. If you actually liked this post, or if you ve enjoyed my work in the Ubuntu project, please do subscribe to my personal blog, which will be here on Medium (unless someone can give me an open source alternative with a funding model). This being said, while I d absolutely take any donations people would like to provide, at the end of the day, I don t do this for the money. I do this for the people just like me, out of love.So you, just like me, can make your dreams happen.Don t give up, it ll come. Just be patient with yourself.As for me, I have business to attend to. What business is that, exactly? Read Walden, and you ll find out.I wish you all well, even the person I called out. I sincerely hope you find what you re looking for in life. It takes time. Sometimes you have to listen to some music to pass the time, so I created a conceptual mixtape if you want to listen to some of the same music as me.I ll do another blog post soon, don t worry.Be well. Much, much more to come.

All finished and wrapping up. The bug I thought was fixed has been identified on two distinct sets of hardware. There are workarounds: the most sensible is *not* to use i386 without a modeset parameter but to just use amd64 instead. amd64 works on the identical problematic hardware in question - just use 64 bit.

Like each month, have a look at the work funded by Freexian s Debian LTS offering.

Debian LTS contributors In April, 22 contributors have been paid to work on Debian LTS, their reports are available:

• Adrian Bunk did 56.25h (out of 56.25h assigned).
• Andreas Henriksson did 15.0h (out of 20.0h assigned), thus carrying over 5.0h to the next month.
• Andrej Shadura did 10.0h (out of 6.0h assigned and 4.0h from previous period).
• Bastien Roucari s did 31.5h (out of 31.5h assigned).
• Ben Hutchings did 8.0h (out of 0.0h assigned and 12.0h from previous period), thus carrying over 4.0h to the next month.
• Carlos Henrique Lima Melara did 11.0h (out of 12.0h assigned), thus carrying over 1.0h to the next month.
• Chris Lamb did 18.0h (out of 18.0h assigned).
• Daniel Leidert did 26.0h (out of 26.0h assigned).
• Emilio Pozuelo Monfort did 30.0h (out of 39.25h assigned and 0.25h from previous period), thus carrying over 9.5h to the next month.
• Guilhem Moulin did 8.5h (out of 3.25h assigned and 11.75h from previous period), thus carrying over 6.5h to the next month.
• Jochen Sprickerhof did 12.5h (out of 20.75h assigned and 9.25h from previous period), thus carrying over 17.5h to the next month.
• Lee Garrett did 26.25h (out of 7.75h assigned and 31.75h from previous period), thus carrying over 13.25h to the next month.
• Lucas Kanashiro did 50.0h (out of 0.0h assigned and 52.0h from previous period), thus carrying over 2.0h to the next month.
• Markus Koschany did 39.5h (out of 39.5h assigned).
• Roberto C. S nchez did 9.0h (out of 0.0h assigned and 12.0h from previous period), thus carrying over 3.0h to the next month.
• Santiago Ruano Rinc n did 12.5h (out of 7.5h assigned and 7.5h from previous period), thus carrying over 2.5h to the next month.
• Sean Whitton did 7.0h (out of 7.0h assigned).
• Stefano Rivera did 0.5h (out of 0.0h assigned and 10.0h from previous period), thus carrying over 9.5h to the next month.
• Sylvain Beucler did 39.5h (out of 39.25h assigned and 0.25h from previous period).
• Thorsten Alteholz did 15.0h (out of 15.0h assigned).
• Tobias Frost did 12.0h (out of 7.75h assigned and 4.25h from previous period).
• Utkarsh Gupta did 2.0h (out of 2.0h assigned).

Evolution of the situation In April, we released 46 DLAs.

• Notable security updates:
  • jetty9, prepared by Markus Koschany, fixes an information disclosure and potential remote code execution vulnerability
  • zabbix, prepared by Tobias Frost, fixes several vulnerabilities, encompassing denial of service, information disclosure or remote code inclusion
  • glibc, prepared by Sean Whitton, fixes a buffer overflow vulnerability
• Notable non-security updates:
  • tzdata, prepared by Emilio Pozuelo Monfort, brings the latest timezone database release
  • php-horde-editor and php-horde-imp, prepared by Sylvain Beucler, have been updated to switch from CKEditor v3, which is EOL, to CKEditor v4; this builds upon work done last month by Sylvain and Bastien for the complete removal of ckeditor3
  • distro-info-data, prepared by Stefano Rivera, adds information concerning future Debian and Ubuntu releases

The LTS team continues to welcome the collaboration of maintainers and other interested parties from outside the regular team. In April, we had external updates contributed by: Yadd - lemonldap-ng and Moritz Schlarb - libapache2-mod-auth-openidc A point release of the current stable Debian 12 (codename bookworm ) is planned for mid-May and several LTS contributors have prepared packages for this update, many of them prepared in conjunction with related LTS updates of the same packages:

• glib2.0, haproxy, imagemagick, poppler, and python-h11, prepared by Adrian Bunk
• rubygems, prepared by Lucas Kanashiro
• ruby3.1 (in collaboration with Lucas Kanashiro), twitter-bootstrap3, twitterboot-strap4, wpa, and erlang, prepared by Bastien Roucari s (corresponding updates of twitter-bootstrap3 and twitter-bootstrap4 were also uploaded to Debian unstable)
• abseil, prepared by Tobias Frost (a corresponding update was also uploaded to Debian unstable)
• vips, prepared by Guilhem Moulin

Additional updates of ruby3.3 and rubygems were prepared for Debian unstable by Lucas Kanashiro. And finally, a highlight of our continued commitment to enhancing long term support efforts in upstream projects. Freexian, as the primary entity behind the management and execution of the LTS project, has partnered with Invisible Things Lab to extend the upstream security support of Xen 4.17, which is shipped in Debian 12 bookworm (the current stable release). This partnership will result in significantly improved lifecycle support for users of Xen on bookworm, and members of the LTS team will play a part in this endeavour. The Freexian announcement has additional details.

Thanks to our sponsors Sponsors that joined recently are in bold.

• Platinum sponsors:
  • Toshiba Corporation (for 115 months)
  • Civil Infrastructure Platform (CIP) (for 83 months)
  • VyOS Inc (for 47 months)
• Gold sponsors:
  • Roche Diagnostics International AG (for 125 months)
  • Akamai - Linode (for 120 months)
  • Babiel GmbH (for 109 months)
  • Plat Home (for 108 months)
  • University of Oxford (for 65 months)
  • Deveryware (for 53 months)
  • EDF SA (for 37 months)
  • Dataport A R (for 12 months)
  • CERN (for 10 months)
• Silver sponsors:
  • Domeneshop AS (for 130 months)
  • Nantes M tropole (for 124 months)
  • Univention GmbH (for 116 months)
  • Universit Jean Monnet de St Etienne (for 116 months)
  • Ribbon Communications, Inc. (for 110 months)
  • Exonet B.V. (for 100 months)
  • Leibniz Rechenzentrum (for 94 months)
  • Minist re de l Europe et des Affaires trang res (for 78 months)
  • Cloudways by DigitalOcean (for 67 months)
  • Dinahosting SL (for 65 months)
  • Bauer Xcel Media Deutschland KG (for 59 months)
  • Platform.sh SAS (for 59 months)
  • Moxa Inc. (for 53 months)
  • sipgate GmbH (for 51 months)
  • OVH US LLC (for 49 months)
  • Tilburg University (for 49 months)
  • GSI Helmholtzzentrum f r Schwerionenforschung GmbH (for 40 months)
  • THINline s.r.o. (for 13 months)
  • Copenhagen Airports A/S (for 7 months)
• Bronze sponsors:
  • Seznam.cz, a.s. (for 131 months)
  • Evolix (for 130 months)
  • Intevation GmbH (for 127 months)
  • Linuxhotel GmbH (for 127 months)
  • Daevel SARL (for 126 months)
  • Bitfolk LTD (for 125 months)
  • Megaspace Internet Services GmbH (for 125 months)
  • Greenbone AG (for 124 months)
  • NUMLOG (for 124 months)
  • WinGo AG (for 123 months)
  • Entr ouvert (for 115 months)
  • Adfinis AG (for 112 months)
  • Laboratoire LEGI - UMR 5519 / CNRS (for 107 months)
  • Tesorion (for 107 months)
  • Bearstech (for 98 months)
  • LiHAS (for 98 months)
  • Catalyst IT Ltd (for 93 months)
  • Supagro (for 88 months)
  • Demarcq SAS (for 87 months)
  • Universit Grenoble Alpes (for 73 months)
  • TouchWeb SAS (for 65 months)
  • SPiN AG (for 62 months)
  • CoreFiling (for 58 months)
  • Institut des sciences cognitives Marc Jeannerod (for 53 months)
  • Observatoire des Sciences de l Univers de Grenoble (for 49 months)
  • Tem Innovations GmbH (for 44 months)
  • WordFinder.pro (for 44 months)
  • CNRS DT INSU R sif (for 42 months)
  • Soliton Systems K.K. (for 38 months)
  • Alter Way (for 35 months)
  • Institut Camille Jordan (for 25 months)
  • SOBIS Software GmbH (for 10 months)
  • Tuxera Inc.

After more than ten years on my trusted X250, and with a lot of financial help for Debian (which I really thank, more on that later), I finally jumped on a new ThinkPad, an X13 Gen 5. The migration path was really easy: I'm doing daily backups with borg of the whole filesystems on an encrypted USB drive, so I just had to boot a live USB key on the new laptop, plug the USB drive, create the partitioning (encryption, LVM etc.) and then run borg extract. Since I'm using LABEL in the various fstab I didn't have much to change. I actually had a small hiccup because my daily backup scripts used ProtectKernelModules and besides preventing loading modules into the running kernel, it also prevents access to /usr/lib/modules. So when restoring I didn't have any modules for the installed kernels. No big deal, I reinstalled the kernel package from the chroot and it did work just fine. All in all it was pretty smooth. I've started a similar page as the X250 for the X13G5 but honestly I don't think I'll have to document a lot of stuff because everything basically works out of the box. It's not really a surprise because we went a long way since 2015 and Linux kernels are really tested on a lot of hardware, including laptops these days, and Intel laptops are the most standard stuff you can find. I guess it's still rocky for ARM64 laptops (and especially Apple hardware) but the point was less to do porting work for Debian and rather beeing more efficient for the current stuff I maintain (and sometimes struggle with). As said above, the laptop has been funded by Debian and I really thank the DPL and the Debian France treasurer for authorizing it and beeing really fast on the reimbursement. I had already posted a long time ago about hardware funding for Debian developers. It took me quite a while but I finally managed to ask for help because I couldn't afford the hardware at this point and it was becoming problematic. This is not something which should be done lightly (Debian wouldn't have the funds) but this is definitely something which should be done if needed. Don't hesitate to ask your fellow Debian developpers about advice on this.

I'm on a bit of an Orbital kick at the moment. Last year they re-issued their 1991 debut album with 43 extra tracks. Later this month they're doing the same for their 1993 sophomore album. I thought I'd try to narrow down some tracks to recommend. I seem to have settled on roughly 5 in previous posts (for Underworld, The Cure, Coil and Gazelle Twin). This time I've done 6 (I borrowed one from Underworld) As always it's a hard choice. I've tried to select some tracks I really enjoy that don't often come up on best-of compilation albums. For a more conventional choice of best-of tracks, I recommend the recent-ish 30 something "compilation" (of sorts, previously written about)

---

1. The Naked and the Dead (1992) The Naked and the Dead by Orbital From an early EP Radiccio, which is being re-issued this month. Digital versions of the re-issue will feature a new recording "Deepest" featuring Tilda Swinton. Sadly this isn't making it onto the pressed version. She performed with them live at Glastonbury 2024. That entire performance was a real pick-me-up during my convolescence, and is recommended. Anyway I've now written more about a song I haven't recommended than the one I did
2. Remind (1993) Remind by Orbital From the Brown Album, I first heard this as the Encore from their "final show", for John Peel, when they split up in 2004. "Remind" wasn't broadcast, but an audience recording was circulated on fan site Loopz. Remarkably, 21 years on, it's still there. In writing this I discovered that it's a re-working of a remix Orbital did for Meat Beat Manifesto: MindStream (Mind The Bend The Mind)
3. You Lot (2004) From the unfairly-maligned "final" Blue album. Featuring a sample of pre-Doctor Who Christoper Eccleston, from another Russell T Davies production, Second Coming.
4. Beached (2000) Beached (Long version) by Orbital, Angelo Badalamenti Co-written by Angelo Badalamenti, it's built around a sample of Badalamenti's score for the movie "The Beach". Orbital's re-work adds some grit to the orchestral instrumentation and opens with a monologue, delivered by Leonardo Di Caprio, sampled from the movie.
5. Spare Parts Express (1999) Spare Parts Express by Orbital Critics had started to be quite unfair to Orbital by this point. The band themselves said that they'd ran out of ideas (pointing at album closer "Style", built around a Stylophone melody, as proof). Their malaise continued right up to the Blue Album, at which point the split up; ostensibly for good, before regrouping 8 years later. Spare Parts Express is a hatchet job of various bits that they didn't develop into full songs on their own. Despite this I think it works. I love long-form electronica, and this clocks in at 10:07. My favourite segment (06:37) is adjacent to a reference (05:05) to John Baker's theme for the BBC children's program Newsround (sadly they aren't using it today. Here's a rundown of Newsround themes over time)
6. Attached (1994) Attached by Orbital This originally debuted on a Peel session before appearing on the subsequent album Snivilisation a few months later. An album closer, and a good come-down song to close this list.

Everybody (who runs containers) knows this situation: you've been running happycontainer:stable for a while and it's been great but now something external changed and you need to adjust the code while there is still no release with the patch. I've encountered exactly this when our Home-Assistant stopped showing the presence of our cat correctly, but we've also been discussing this at work recently. Now the most obvious (to me?) solution would be to build a new container, based on the original one, and perform the modifications at build time. Something like this: But that's not interactive, and if you don't have a patch readily available, that's not what you want. (And I'll save you the idea of RUNing sed and friends to alter files!) You could run vim inside the container, but that requires vim to be installed there in the first place. And a reasonable configuration. And Well, turns out podman can mount the root fs of a running container. And if you're running as non-root, you'll get an error: Luckily the solution is in the error message - use podman unshare So in both cases (root and rootless) we get a path, which is the mounted root fs and we can edit things in there as we like. Once done, the container can be unmounted again, and the namespace left At this point we have modified the code inside the container, but the running process is still using the old code. If we restart the container now to restart the process, our changes will be lost. Instead, we can commit the changes as a new layer and tag the result. And now, when we restart the container, it will use the new code with our changes Is this the best workflow you can get? Probably not. Does it work? Hell yeah!

On 26th and 27th April we held a Debian bug-squashing party near Leuven, Belgium. Several longstanding and new Debian contributors gathered to work through some of the highest priority bugs affecting the upcoming release of Debian 13 trixie . We were hosted by the Familia community centre in Tildonk. As this venue currently does not have an Internet connection, we brought a mobile hotspot and a local Debian mirror. In attendance were:

• Debian Developers: Ben Hutchings, Nattie Mayer-Hutchings, Kurt Roeckx, and Geert Stappers
• New contributors: Y ce K r m, Louis Renuart, Arnout Vandecappelle

The new contributors were variously using Arch, Fedora, and Ubuntu, and the DDs spent some some time setting them up with Debian dvelopment environments. The bugs we worked on included:

• #994510: libunwind8 abuses setcontext() causing SIGSEGV on i386 with glibc >= 2.32: Kurt added a patch, though it seems that a different change is needed.
• #1016936: dwz: Unknown debugging section .debug_addr causes some builds to fail: Ben reduced the severity.
• #1063664: gcc-13-cross: file conflicts between gnat-13-<triplet> and gnat- 9,10 -<triplet>: Kurt looked at this and questioned the explanation for reopening this bug.
• #1060960: libslf4j-java: FTBFS: make: *** [debian/rules:4: build] Error 25: Ben identified that there have been 2 separate test regressions, and added a patch for the first of them.
• #1064003: src:cross-toolchain-base: unsatisfied build dependency in testing: linux-source-6.5 (>= 6.5.8): Ben closed this as already fixed.
• #1072167: grub-pc-dbg: newly-added symbol file does not provide any symbols: Ben reproduced this and added a patch.
• #1076350: Segfault with shared libuv on x86 (CVE-2025-47153): Kurt asked the maintainer for clarification of the status.
• #1078608: apt update silently leaves old index data: Ben reproduced this (again), and identified that it may be triggered by PackageKit.
• #1089192: golang-golang-x-net: FTBFS: FAIL: TestNumICANNRules: Y ce looked at this and wrote a patch. However, the maintainers took a different approach to fix this.
• #1089432: shim: Supporting rootless builds by default: Kurt asked the maintainer for a status update.
• #1091668: debian-installer: Explicitly declare requirement for root: Louis and Kurt looked at this. Kurt asked the maintainer for clarification of the status.
• #1084066: amdgcn-tools: Please upgrade build-dep to llvm/clang 18 or 19 and #1092643: llvm-toolchain-19: readd gcn targets: Kurt and Arnout looked at these. Arnout added information about the build failure, the relevant upstream changes, and an upstream bug report.
• #1095376: refpolicy: FTBFS: make[2]: *** [Rules.modular:230: validate] Segmentation fault: Arnout looked at this and was not able to reproduce it, but noted that it may actually be caused by a bug in swig.
• #1093160: rsync: failed verification update discarded: Ben reduced the severity.
• #1099013: emacs-gtk: hangs compositor when used under Wayland: Louis did a lot of work to reproduce this, but the bug was not reproducible.
• #1104169: wish: adduser _radvd on new installs and #1104229: wish: add systemd unit: Geert worked on and committed fixes for these bugs.
• #1100699: screen: hardcopy and screen-exchange are insecure by default: Y ce and Ben looked at this. Ben started a discussion of what changes would be appropriate to fix it.
• #1100981: libmlir-19 fails to coinstall: Arnout and Kurt looked at this, and pointed out an existing MR that should fix it and some other packages that are similarly affected.

Welcome to our fourth report from the Reproducible Builds project in 2025. These monthly reports outline what we ve been up to over the past month, and highlight items of news from elsewhere in the increasingly-important area of software supply-chain security. Lastly, if you are interested in contributing to the Reproducible Builds project, please visit our Contribute page on our website. Table of contents:

1. reproduce.debian.net
2. Fifty Years of Open Source Software Supply Chain Security
3. 4th CHAINS Software Supply Chain Workshop
4. Mailing list updates
5. Canonicalization for Unreproducible Builds in Java
6. OSS Rebuild adds new TUI features
7. Distribution roundup
8. diffoscope & strip-nondeterminism
9. Website updates
10. Reproducibility testing framework
11. Upstream patches

---

reproduce.debian.net The last few months have seen the introduction, development and deployment of reproduce.debian.net. In technical terms, this is an instance of rebuilderd, our server designed monitor the official package repositories of Linux distributions and attempt to reproduce the observed results there. This month, however, we are pleased to announce that reproduce.debian.net now tests all the Debian trixie architectures except s390x and mips64el. The ppc64el architecture was added through the generous support of Oregon State University Open Source Laboratory (OSUOSL), and we can support the armel architecture thanks to CodeThink.

Fifty Years of Open Source Software Supply Chain Security Russ Cox has published a must-read article in ACM Queue on Fifty Years of Open Source Software Supply Chain Security. Subtitled, For decades, software reuse was only a lofty goal. Now it s very real. , Russ article goes on to outline the history and original goals of software supply-chain security in the US military in the early 1970s, all the way to the XZ Utils backdoor of 2024. Through that lens, Russ explores the problem and how it has changed, and hasn t changed, over time. He concludes as follows:

We are all struggling with a massive shift that has happened in the past 10 or 20 years in the software industry. For decades, software reuse was only a lofty goal. Now it s very real. Modern programming environments such as Go, Node and Rust have made it trivial to reuse work by others, but our instincts about responsible behaviors have not yet adapted to this new reality. We all have more work to do.

4th CHAINS Software Supply Chain Workshop Convened as part of the CHAINS research project at the KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden, the 4th CHAINS Software Supply Chain Workshop occurred during April. During the workshop, there were a number of relevant workshops, including:

• Signature, Attestations and Reproducible Builds
• Does Functional Package Management Enable Reproducible Builds at Scale?
• Causes and Mitigations of Unreproducible Builds in Java [paper]
• Fixing Breaking Dependency Updates Using LLMs
• The caveats of vulnerability analysis
• maven-lockfile (Lockfiles for Java and Maven)
• observer (Generating SBOMs for C/C++)
• dirty-waters (Transparency checks for software supply chains)
• A supply chain competition. Martin Schwaighofer, the winner, created a recap video (20m43s).
• Finally, 8 posters on dependency introspection, diverse double compilation, dependency management, VEX and SBOM.

The full listing of the agenda is available on the workshop s website.

Mailing list updates On our mailing list this month:

• Luca DiMaio of Chainguard posted to the list reporting that they had successfully implemented reproducible filesystem images with both ext4 and an EFI system partition. They go on to list the various methods, and the thread generated at least fifteen replies.
• David Wheeler announced that the OpenSSF is building a glossary of sorts in order that they consistently use the same meaning for the same term and, moreover, that they have drafted a definition for reproducible build . The thread generated a significant number of replies on the definition, leading to a potential update to the Reproducible Build s own definition.
• Lastly, kpcyrd posted to the list with a timely reminder and update on their repro-env tool. As first reported in our July 2023 report, kpcyrd mentions that:

  My initial interest in reproducible builds was how do I distribute pre-compiled binaries on GitHub without people raising security concerns about them . I ve cycled back to this original problem about 5 years later and built a tool that is meant to address this. [ ]

Canonicalization for Unreproducible Builds in Java Aman Sharma, Benoit Baudry and Martin Monperrus have published a new scholarly study related to reproducible builds within Java. Titled Canonicalization for Unreproducible Builds in Java, the article s abstract is as follows:

[ ] Achieving reproducibility at scale remains difficult, especially in Java, due to a range of non-deterministic factors and caveats in the build process. In this work, we focus on reproducibility in Java-based software, archetypal of enterprise applications. We introduce a conceptual framework for reproducible builds, we analyze a large dataset from Reproducible Central and we develop a novel taxonomy of six root causes of unreproducibility. We study actionable mitigations: artifact and bytecode canonicalization using OSS-Rebuild and jNorm respectively. Finally, we present Chains-Rebuild, a tool that raises reproducibility success from 9.48% to 26.89% on 12,283 unreproducible artifacts. To sum up, our contributions are the first large-scale taxonomy of build unreproducibility causes in Java, a publicly available dataset of unreproducible builds, and Chains-Rebuild, a canonicalization tool for mitigating unreproducible builds in Java.

A full PDF of their article is available from arXiv.

OSS Rebuild adds new TUI features OSS Rebuild aims to automate rebuilding upstream language packages (e.g. from PyPI, crates.io and npm registries) and publish signed attestations and build definitions for public use. OSS Rebuild ships a text-based user interface (TUI) for viewing, launching, and debugging rebuilds. While previously requiring ownership of a full instance of OSS Rebuild s hosted infrastructure, the TUI now supports a fully local mode of build execution and artifact storage. Thanks to Giacomo Benedetti for his usage feedback and work to extend the local-only development toolkit. Another feature added to the TUI was an experimental chatbot integration that provides interactive feedback on rebuild failure root causes and suggests fixes.

Distribution roundup In Debian this month:

• Roland Clobus posted another status report on reproducible ISO images on our mailing list this month, with the summary that all live images build reproducibly from the online Debian archive .
• Debian developer Simon Josefsson published another two reproducibility-related blog posts this month, the first on the topic of Verified Reproducible Tarballs. Simon sardonically challenges the reader as follows: Do you want a supply-chain challenge for the Easter weekend? Pick some well-known software and try to re-create the official release tarballs from the corresponding Git checkout. Is anyone able to reproduce anything these days? After that, they also published a blog post on Building Debian in a GitLab Pipeline using their multi-stage rebuild approach.
• Roland also posted to our mailing list to highlight that there is now another tool in Debian that generates reproducible output, equivs . This is a tool to create trivial Debian packages that might Depend on other packages. As Roland writes, building the [equivs] package has been reproducible for a while, [but] now the output of the [tool] has become reproducible as well .
• Lastly, 9 reviews of Debian packages were added, 10 were updated and 10 were removed this month adding to our extensive knowledge about identified issues.

The IzzyOnDroid Android APK repository made more progress in April. Thanks to funding by NLnet and Mobifree, the project was also to put more time into their tooling. For instance, developers can now easily run their own verification builder in less than 5 minutes . This currently supports Debian-based systems, but support for RPM-based systems is incoming.

• The rbuilder_setup tool can now setup the entire framework within less than five minutes. The process is configurable, too, so everything from just the basics to verify builds up to a fully-fledged RB environment is also possible.
• This tool works on Debian, RedHat and Arch Linux, as well as their derivates. The project has received successful reports from Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora and some Arch Linux derivates so far.
• Documentation on how to work with reproducible builds (making apps reproducible, debugging unreproducible packages, etc) is available in the project s wiki page.
• Future work is also in the pipeline, including documentation, guidelines and helpers for debugging.

NixOS defined an Outreachy project for improving build reproducibility. In the application phase, NixOS saw some strong candidates providing contributions, both on the NixOS side and upstream: guider-le-ecit analyzed a libpinyin issue. Tessy James fixed an issue in arandr and helped analyze one in libvlc that led to a proposed upstream fix. Finally, 3pleX fixed an issue which was accepted in upstream kitty, one in upstream maturin, one in upstream python-sip and one in the Nix packaging of python-libbytesize. Sadly, the funding for this internship fell through, so NixOS were forced to abandon their search. Lastly, in openSUSE news, Bernhard M. Wiedemann posted another monthly update for their work there.

diffoscope & strip-nondeterminism diffoscope is our in-depth and content-aware diff utility that can locate and diagnose reproducibility issues. This month, Chris Lamb made the following changes, including preparing and uploading a number of versions to Debian:

• Use the --walk argument over the potentially dangerous alternative --scan when calling out to zipdetails(1). [ ]
• Correct a longstanding issue where many >-based version tests used in conditional fixtures were broken. This was used to ensure that specific tests were only run when the version on the system was newer than a particular number. Thanks to Colin Watson for the report (Debian bug #1102658) [ ]
• Address a long-hidden issue in the test_versions testsuite as well, where we weren t actually testing the greater-than comparisons mentioned above, as it was masked by the tests for equality. [ ]
• Update copyright years. [ ]

In strip-nondeterminism, however, Holger Levsen updated the Continuous Integration (CI) configuration in order to use the standard Debian pipelines via debian/salsa-ci.yml instead of using .gitlab-ci.yml. [ ]

Website updates Once again, there were a number of improvements made to our website this month including:

• Aman Sharma added OSS-Rebuild s stabilize tool to the Tools page. [ ][ ]
• Chris Lamb added a configure.ac (GNU Autotools) example for using SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH. [ ]. Chris also updated the SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH snippet and move the archive metadata to a more suitable location. [ ]
• Denis Carikli added GNU Boot to our ever-evolving Projects page.

Reproducibility testing framework The Reproducible Builds project operates a comprehensive testing framework running primarily at tests.reproducible-builds.org in order to check packages and other artifacts for reproducibility. In April, a number of changes were made by Holger Levsen, including:

• reproduce.debian.net-related:
  • Add armel.reproduce.debian.net to support the armel architecture. [ ][ ]
  • Add a new ARM node, codethink05. [ ][ ]
  • Add ppc64el.reproduce.debian.net to support testing of the ppc64el architecture. [ ][ ][ ]
  • Improve the reproduce.debian.net front page. [ ][ ]
  • Make various changes to the ppc64el nodes. [ ][ ]9[ ][ ]
  • Make various changes to the arm64 and armhf nodes. [ ][ ][ ][ ]
  • Various changes related to the rebuilderd-worker entry point. [ ][ ][ ]
  • Create and deploy a pkgsync script. [ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
  • Fix the monitoring of the riscv64 architecture. [ ][ ]
  • Make a number of changes related to starting the rebuilderd service. [ ][ ][ ][ ]
• Backup-related:
  • Backup the rebuilder databases every week. [ ][ ][ ][ ]
  • Improve the node health checks. [ ][ ]
• Misc:
  • Re-use existing connections to the SSH proxy node on the riscv64 nodes. [ ][ ]
  • Node maintenance. [ ][ ][ ]

In addition:

• Jochen Sprickerhof fixed the risvc64 host names [ ] and requested access to all the rebuilderd nodes [ ].
• Mattia Rizzolo updated the self-serve rebuild scheduling tool, replacing the deprecated SSO -style authentication with OpenIDC which authenticates against salsa.debian.org. [ ][ ][ ]
• Roland Clobus updated the configuration for the osuosl3 node to designate 4 workers for bigger builds. [ ]

Upstream patches The Reproducible Builds project detects, dissects and attempts to fix as many currently-unreproducible packages as possible. We endeavour to send all of our patches upstream where appropriate. This month, we wrote a large number of such patches, including:

• Bernhard M. Wiedemann
  • lout
  • mpiP
  • libabigail
  • cython
  • mpiP
  • godot
  • gnome-text-editor
  • clisp
  • rpm
  • Fiona
  • qtdoc
• Chris Hofstaedtler:
  • #1104512 filed against command-not-found.
  • #1104517 filed against command-not-found.
  • #1104535 filed against cc65.
• Chris Lamb:
  • #1102659 filed against vcsh.
  • #1103797 filed against schism.
  • #1103798 filed against magic-wormhole-mailbox-server.
  • #1103800 filed against openvpn3-client.
• James Addison:
  • #1102760 filed against apg.
• Jochen Sprickerhof:
  • #1103288 filed against courier.
  • #1103563 filed against cross-toolchain-base.

Finally, if you are interested in contributing to the Reproducible Builds project, please visit our Contribute page on our website. However, you can get in touch with us via:

• IRC: #reproducible-builds on irc.oftc.net.
• Mastodon: @reproducible_builds@fosstodon.org
• Mailing list: rb-general@lists.reproducible-builds.org