Posted on July 15, 2025
Tags: madeof:bits, topic:xmpp, topic:debian

This is an approximation of what I told at my talk Federated instant messaging, 100% debianized at DebConf 25, for people who prefer reading text. There will also be a video recording, as soon as it s ready :) at the link above. Communicating is a basic human need, and today some kind of computer-mediated communication is a requirement for most people, especially those in this room. With everything that is happening, it s now more important than ever that these means of communication aren t controlled by entities that can t be trusted, whether because they can stop providing the service at any given time or worse because they are going to abuse it in order to extract more profit. If only there was a well established chat system based on some standard developed in an open way, with all of the features one expects from a chat system but federated so that one can choose between many different and independent providers, or even self-hosting. But wait, it does exist! I m not talking about IRC, I m talking about XMPP! While it has been around since the last millennium, it has not remained still, with hundred of XMPP Extension Protocols, or XEPs that have been developed to add all of the features that nobody in 1999 imagined we could need in Instant Messaging today, and more, such as IoT devices or even social networks. There is a myth that this makes XMPP a mess of incompatible software, but there is an XEP for that: XEP-0479: XMPP Compliance Suites 2023, which is a list of XEPs that needs to be supported by Instant Messaging servers and clients, including mobile ones, and all of the recommended ones will mostly just work. These include conversations.im on android, dino on linux, which also works pretty nicely on linux phones, gajim for a more fully featured option that includes the kitchen sink, profanity for text interface fanatics like me, and I ve heard that monal works decently enough on the iThings. One thing that sets XMPP apart from other federated protocols, is that it has already gone through the phase where everybody was on one very big server, which then cut out federation, and we ve learned from the experience. These days there are still a few places that cater to newcomers, like https://account.conversations.im/, https://snikket.org/ (which also includes tools to make it easier to host your own instance) and https://quicksy.im/, but most people are actually on servers of a manageable size. My strong recommendation is for community hosting: not just self-hosting for yourself, but finding a community you feel part of and trust, and share a server with them, whether managed by volunteers from the community itself, or by a paid provider. If you are a Debian Developer, you already have one: you can go to https://db.debian.org/ , select Change rtc password to set your own password, wait an hour or so and you re good to go, as described at the bottom of https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DebianSocial. A few years ago it had remained a bit behind, but these days it s managed by an active team, and if you re missing some features, or just want to know what s happening with it, you can join their BoF on Friday afternoon (and also thank them for their work). But for most people in this room, I d also recommend finding a friend or two who can help as a backup, and run a server for your own families or community: as a certified lazy person who doesn t like doing sysadmin jobs, I can guarantee it s perfectly feasible, about in the same range of difficulty as running your own web server for a static site. The two most popular servers for this, prosody and ejabberd, are well maintained in Debian, and these days there isn t a lot more to do than installing them, telling them your hostname, setting up a few DNS entries, and then you mostly need to keep the machine updated and very little else. After that, it s just applying system security updates, upgrading everything every couple years (some configuration updates may be needed, but nothing major) and maybe helping some non-technical users, if you are hosting your non-technical friends (the kind who would need support on any other platform).

---

Question time (including IRC questions) included which server would be recommended for very few users (I use prosody and I m very happy with it, but I believe ejabberd works also just fine), then somebody reminded me that I had forgotten to mention https://www.chatons.org/ , which lists free, ethical and decentralized services, including xmpp ones. I was also asked a comparison with matrix, which does cover a very similar target as XMPP, but I am quite biased against it, and I d prefer to talk well of my favourite platform than badly of its competitor.

DebConf25, the 25th annual Debian Developer Conference, is taking place in Brest, France from 14 to 19 July 2025. Debian contributors from all over the world have come together at the Campus of IMT Atlantique Bretagne-Pays de la Loire, Brest, to participate and work in a conference exclusively ran by volunteers. As the conference begins on July 14, the French National Day, Debian can make France's motto its own: "Libert , galit , fraternit ", Freedom for Free and Open Source Software, Equity for the equal right (and duties) of everyone to use, modify and share Free Software, Fraternity which perfectly covers what our code of conduct defines. Today the main conference starts with around 500 expected attendants and over 140 scheduled activities, including 45-minute and 20-minute talks, Bird of a Feather ("BoF") team meetings, workshops, a job fair, as well as a variety of other events. The full schedule is updated each day, including activities planned ad-hoc by attendees over the course of the conference. If you would like to engage remotely, you can follow the video streams available from the DebConf25 website for the events happening in the three talk rooms: M ridienne, Grand amphi and Petit amphi accessible from the DebConf25 homepage. Or you can join the conversations happening inside the talk rooms via the OFTC IRC network in the #debconf-meridienne, #debconf-grandamphi, #debconf-petitamphi, and #debconf-bof channels. Please also join us in the #debconf channel for common discussions related to DebConf. You can also follow the live coverage of news about DebConf25 provided by our micronews service or the @debian profile on your favorite social network. DebConf is committed to a safe and welcoming environment for all participants. Please see our Code of Conduct page for more information on this. Debian thanks the commitment of numerous sponsors to support DebConf25, particularly our Platinum Sponsors: Infomaniak, Proxmox, Viridien, EDF, and AMD.

In the last past weeks, I have done something I had been meaning to do for a while but always pushed back at the bottom of my TODO pile: prepare for my death. I am still quite young and perfectly healthy (mentally and physically) and I do plan to live a long and full life, but death is something that comes from us all and can strike anytime. Having witnessed friends and colleagues who lost loved ones who did not prepare adequately for their passing, dealing with all this legal stuff ahead of time seems like the best gift you can leave them. Writing my will was the easiest part of this "preparation for death" process. I have few material possessions and I'm leaving everything to my SO. As for the copyright for my code, I have decided everything I wrote will be licensed under CC0 (public domain) when I die. Quebec where I live also accepts holograph wills, which means I didn't have to hire a notary. Apart from the will, I also wrote a protection mandate¹, filled out Quebec's organ donation form², took a contract for prearranged funeral services³ and finally, wrote a disaster recovery plan. This recovery plan was by far the longest and most tedious part of this entire ordeal. If all your machines use full-disk encryption and you die or forget your passwords (for example after a head injury), can your data be recovered? How do you arbitrate between easy recovery and data security? If all your local devices burn down and you also pass away in the process, how will your next of kin access your remote backups and extract the relevant data (in my case, my password manager)? I had to ask myself many complex questions in this process and although I won't be sharing my disaster recovery plan here (security through obscurity), I urge you to take the time to do something similar yourself and make sure you will leave a house in order when you go away.

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

Debian LTS contributors In June, 20 contributors have been paid to work on Debian LTS, their reports are available:

• Abhijith PA did 14.0h (out of 14.0h assigned).
• Adrian Bunk did 23.5h (out of 23.5h assigned).
• Andreas Henriksson did 3.0h (out of 3.0h assigned and 17.0h from previous period), thus carrying over 17.0h to the next month.
• Andrej Shadura did 2.0h (out of 3.0h assigned and 7.0h from previous period), thus carrying over 8.0h to the next month.
• Bastien Roucari s did 20.0h (out of 20.0h assigned).
• Ben Hutchings did 8.0h (out of 7.5h assigned and 16.0h from previous period), thus carrying over 15.5h to the next month.
• Carlos Henrique Lima Melara did 12.0h (out of 12.0h assigned).
• Chris Lamb did 18.0h (out of 18.0h assigned).
• Daniel Leidert did 22.0h (out of 22.5h assigned and 1.0h from previous period), thus carrying over 1.5h to the next month.
• Emilio Pozuelo Monfort did 23.5h (out of 16.75h assigned and 6.75h from previous period).
• Guilhem Moulin did 14.0h (out of 11.5h assigned and 3.5h from previous period), thus carrying over 1.0h to the next month.
• Jochen Sprickerhof did 21.0h (out of 0.5h assigned and 22.75h from previous period), thus carrying over 2.25h to the next month.
• Lucas Kanashiro did 20.0h (out of 20.0h assigned).
• Markus Koschany did 23.25h (out of 17.0h assigned and 6.25h from previous period).
• Roberto C. S nchez did 21.25h (out of 20.75h assigned and 3.25h from previous period), thus carrying over 2.75h to the next month.
• Santiago Ruano Rinc n did 12.75h (out of 15.0h assigned), thus carrying over 2.25h to the next month.
• Sean Whitton did 1.0h (out of 4.25h assigned and 1.75h from previous period), thus carrying over 5.0h to the next month.
• Sylvain Beucler did 23.5h (out of 23.5h assigned).
• Thorsten Alteholz did 15.0h (out of 15.0h assigned).
• Tobias Frost did 2.5h (out of 12.0h assigned), thus carrying over 9.5h to the next month.

Evolution of the situation In June, we released 35 DLAs.

• Notable security updates:
  • mariadb-10.5, prepared by Otto Kek l inen, fixes vulnerabilities which could result in denial of service, information disclosure, or unauthorized data modification
  • python-django, prepared by Chris Lamb, fixes vulnerabilities which would result in log injection or denial of service
  • webkit2gtk, prepared by Emilio Pozuelo Monfort, fixes many vulnerabilities which could results in a wide range of issues
  • xorg-server, prepared by Emilio Pozuelo Monfort, fixes multiple vulnerabilities which may result in privilege escalation
  • sudo, prepared by Thorsten Alteholz, fixes a vulnerability which could result in privilege escalation
• Notable non-security updates:
  • debian-security-support, prepared by Santiago Ruano Rinc n, updates status of packages which receive limited security support or which have reached the end of security support
  • dns-root-data, prepared by Sylvain Beucler, updates the DNSSEC trust anchors

This month s contributions from outside the regular team include the mariadb-10.5 update mentioned above, prepared by Otto Kek l inen (the package maintainer); an update to libfile-find-rule-perl, prepared by Salvatore Bonaccorso (a member of the Debian Security Team); an update to activemq, prepared by Emmanuel Arias (a maintainer of the package). Additionally, LTS Team members contributed stable updates of the following packages:

• curl, prepared by Carlos Henrique Lima Melara
• python-tornado, prepared by Daniel Leidert
• python-flask-cors, prepared by Daniel Leidert
• common-vfs, prepared by Daniel Leidert
• cjson, prepared by Adrian Bunk
• icu, prepared by Adrian Bunk
• node-tar-fs, prepared by Adrian Bunk
• rar, prepared by Adrian Bunk

Something of particular noteworthiness is that LTS contributor Carlos Henrique Lima Melara discovered a regression in the upstream fix for CVE-2023-2753 in curl. The corrective action which he took included providing a patch to upstream, uploading a stable update of curl, and further updating the version of curl in LTS. DebConf, the annual Debian Conference, is coming up in July and, as is customary each year, the week preceding the conference will feature an event called DebCamp. The DebCamp week provides an opportunity for teams and other interested groups/individuals to meet together in person in the same venue as the conference itself, with the purpose of doing focused work, often called sprints . LTS coordinator Roberto C. S nchez has announced that the LTS Team is planning to hold a sprint primarily focused on the Debian security tracker and the associated tooling used by the LTS Team and the Debian Security Team.

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

• Platinum sponsors:
  • Toshiba Corporation (for 117 months)
  • Civil Infrastructure Platform (CIP) (for 85 months)
  • VyOS Inc (for 49 months)
• Gold sponsors:
  • Roche Diagnostics International AG (for 127 months)
  • Akamai - Linode (for 121 months)
  • Babiel GmbH (for 111 months)
  • Plat Home (for 110 months)
  • University of Oxford (for 67 months)
  • Deveryware (for 54 months)
  • EDF SA (for 39 months)
  • Dataport A R (for 14 months)
  • CERN (for 12 months)
• Silver sponsors:
  • Domeneshop AS (for 132 months)
  • Nantes M tropole (for 126 months)
  • Univention GmbH (for 118 months)
  • Universit Jean Monnet de St Etienne (for 118 months)
  • Ribbon Communications, Inc. (for 112 months)
  • Exonet B.V. (for 102 months)
  • Leibniz Rechenzentrum (for 96 months)
  • Minist re de l Europe et des Affaires trang res (for 80 months)
  • Cloudways by DigitalOcean (for 69 months)
  • Dinahosting SL (for 67 months)
  • Platform.sh SAS (for 61 months)
  • Moxa Inc. (for 55 months)
  • sipgate GmbH (for 53 months)
  • OVH US LLC (for 51 months)
  • Tilburg University (for 51 months)
  • GSI Helmholtzzentrum f r Schwerionenforschung GmbH (for 42 months)
  • THINline s.r.o. (for 15 months)
  • Copenhagen Airports A/S (for 9 months)
• Bronze sponsors:
  • Evolix (for 132 months)
  • Seznam.cz, a.s. (for 132 months)
  • Intevation GmbH (for 129 months)
  • Linuxhotel GmbH (for 129 months)
  • Daevel SARL (for 128 months)
  • Megaspace Internet Services GmbH (for 127 months)
  • Greenbone AG (for 126 months)
  • NUMLOG (for 126 months)
  • WinGo AG (for 125 months)
  • Entr ouvert (for 116 months)
  • Adfinis AG (for 114 months)
  • Tesorion (for 109 months)
  • Laboratoire LEGI - UMR 5519 / CNRS (for 108 months)
  • Bearstech (for 100 months)
  • LiHAS (for 100 months)
  • Catalyst IT Ltd (for 95 months)
  • Demarcq SAS (for 89 months)
  • Universit Grenoble Alpes (for 75 months)
  • TouchWeb SAS (for 67 months)
  • SPiN AG (for 64 months)
  • CoreFiling (for 60 months)
  • Institut des sciences cognitives Marc Jeannerod (for 55 months)
  • Observatoire des Sciences de l Univers de Grenoble (for 51 months)
  • Tem Innovations GmbH (for 46 months)
  • WordFinder.pro (for 45 months)
  • CNRS DT INSU R sif (for 44 months)
  • Soliton Systems K.K. (for 39 months)
  • Alter Way (for 37 months)
  • Institut Camille Jordan (for 27 months)
  • SOBIS Software GmbH (for 12 months)
  • Tuxera Inc. (for 3 months)

Posted on July 4, 2025
Tags: madeof:atoms, craft:sewing, FreeSoftWear

And this is the time when one realizes that she only has one white camisole left. And it s summer, so I m wearing a lot of white shirts, and I always wear a white camisole under a white shirt (unless I m wearing a full chemise). Not a problem, I have a good pattern for a well fitting camisole that I ve done multiple times, I don t even need to take my measurements and draft things, I can get some white jersey from the stash and quickly make a few. From the stash. Where I have a roll of white jersey and one of off-white jersey. It s in the inventory. With the position field set to a place that no longer exists. uooops. But I have some leftover lightweight (woven) linen fabric. Surely if I cut the pattern as is with 2 cm of allowance and then sew it with just 1 cm of allowance it will work even in a woven fabric, right? Wrong. I mean, it would have probably fit, but it was too tight to squeeze into, and would require adding maybe a button closure to the front. feasible, but not something I wanted. But that s nothing that can t be solved with the Power of Insertion Lace, right? One dig through the Lace Stash¹ and some frantic zig-zag sewing later, I had a tube wide enough for me to squiggle in, with lace on the sides not because it was the easiest place for me to put it, but because it was the right place for it to preserve my modesty, of course. Encouraged by this, I added a bit of lace to the front, for the look of it, and used some more insertion lace for the straps, instead of making them out of fabric. And, it looks like it can work. I plan to wear it tonight, so that I can find out whether there is something that chafes or anything, but from a quick test it feels reasonable. At bust level it s now a bit too wide, and it gapes a bit under the arms, but I don t think that it s going to cause significant problems, and (other than everybody on the internet) nobody is going to see it, so it s not a big deal. I still have some linen, but I don t think I m going to make another one with the same pattern: maybe I ll try to do something with a front opening, but I ll see later on, also after I ve been looking for the missing jersey in a few more potential places. As for now, the number of white camisoles I have has doubled, and this is progress enough for today.

---

1. with many thanks to my mother s friend who gave me quite a bit of vintage cotton lace.

This post is based on presentation given at the Validos annual members meeting on June 25th, 2025.

When I started getting into Linux and open source over 25 years ago, the majority of the software development in this area was done by academics and hobbyists. The number of companies participating in open source has since exploded in parallel with the growth of mobile and cloud software, the majority of which is built on top of open source. For example, Android powers most mobile phones today and is based on Linux. Almost all software used to operate large cloud provider data centers, such as AWS or Google, is either open source or made in-house by the cloud provider. Pretty much all companies, regardless of the industry, have been using open source software at least to some extent for years. However, the degree to which they collaborate with the upstream origins of the software varies. I encourage all companies in a technical industry to start contributing upstream. There are many benefits to having a good relationship with your upstream open source software vendors, both for the short term and especially for the long term. Moreover, with the rollout of CRA in EU in 2025-2027, the law will require software companies to contribute security fixes upstream to the open source projects their products use. To ensure the process is well managed, business-aligned and legally compliant, there are a few do s and don t do s that are important to be aware of.

Maintain your SBOMs For every piece of software, regardless of whether the code was done in-house, from an open source project, or a combination of these, every company needs to produce a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM). The SBOMs provide a standardized and interoperable way to track what software and which versions are used where, what software licenses apply, who holds the copyright of which component, which security fixes have been applied and so forth. A catalog of SBOMs, or equivalent, forms the backbone of software supply-chain management in corporations.

Identify your strategic upstream vendors The SBOMs are likely to reveal that for any piece of non-trivial software, there are hundreds or thousands of upstream open source projects in use. Few organizations have resources to contribute to all of their upstreams. If your organization is just starting to organize upstream contribution activities, identify the key projects that have the largest impact on your business and prioritize forming a relationship with them first. Organizations with a mature contribution process will be collaborating with tens or hundreds of upstreams.

Create a written policy with input from business owners, legal and marketing An upstream contribution policy typically covers things such as who decides what can be contributed upstream from a business point of view, what licenses are allowed or to avoid, how to document copyright, how to deal with projects that require signing copyright assignments (e.g. contributor license agreements), other potential legal guidelines to follow. Additionally, the technical steps on how to prepare a contribution should be outlined, including how to internally review and re-review them, who the technical approvers are to ensure high quality and good reputation and so on. The policy does not have to be static or difficult to produce. Start with a small policy and a few trusted senior developers following it, and update its contents as you run into new situations that need internal company alignment. For example, don t require staff to create new GitHub accounts merely for the purpose of doing one open source contribution. Initially, do things with minimal overhead and add requirements to the policy only if they have clear and strong benefits. The purpose of a policy should be to make it obvious and easy for employees to do the right thing, not to add obstacles and stop progress or encourage people to break the policy.

Appoint an internal coordinator and champions Having a written policy on how to contribute upstream will help ensure a consistent process and avoid common pitfalls. However, a written policy alone does not automatically translate into a well-running process. It is highly recommended to appoint at least one internal coordinator who is knowledgeable about how open source communities work, how software licensing and patents work, and is senior enough to have a good sense of what business priorities to optimize for. In small organizations it can be a single person, while larger organizations typically have a full Open Source Programs Office. This coordinator should oversee the contribution process, track all contributions made across the organization, and further optimize the process by working with stakeholders across the business, including legal experts, business owners and CTOs. The marketing and recruiting folks should also be involved, as upstream contributions will have a reputation-building aspect as well, which can be enhanced with systematic tracking and publishing of activities. Additionally, at least in the beginning, the organization should also appoint key staff members as open source champions. Implementing a new process always includes some obstacles and occasional setbacks, which may discourage employees from putting in the extra effort to reap the full long-term benefits for the company. Having named champions will empower them to make the first few contributions themselves, setting a good example and encouraging and mentoring others to contribute upstream as well.

Avoid excessive approvals To maintain a high quality bar, it is always good to have all outgoing submissions reviewed by at least one or two people. Two or three pairs of eyeballs are significantly more likely to catch issues that might slip by someone working alone. The review also slows down the process by a day or two, which gives the author time to sleep on it , which usually helps to ensure the final submission is well-thought-out by the author. Do not require more than one or two reviewers. The marginal utility goes quickly to zero beyond a few reviewers, and at around four or five people the effect becomes negative, as the weight of each approval decreases and the reviewers begin to take less personal responsibility. Having too many people in the loop also makes each feedback round slow and expensive, to the extent that the author will hesitate to make updates and ask for re-reviews due to the costs involved. If the organization experiences setbacks due to mistakes slipping through the review process, do not respond by adding more reviewers, as it will just grind the contribution process to a halt. If there are quality concerns, invest in training for engineers, CI systems and perhaps an internal certification program for those making public upstream code submissions. A typical software engineer is more likely to seriously try to become proficient at their job and put effort into a one-off certification exam and then make multiple high-quality contributions, than it is for a low-skilled engineer to improve and even want to continue doing more upstream contributions if they are burdened by heavy review processes every time they try to submit an upstream contribution.

Don t expect upstream to accept all code contributions Sure, identifying the root cause of and fixing a tricky bug or writing a new feature requires significant effort. While an open source project will certainly appreciate the effort invested, it doesn t mean it will always welcome all contributions with open arms. Occasionally, the project won t agree that the code is correct or the feature is useful, and some contributions are bound to be rejected. You can minimize the chance of experiencing rejections by having a solid internal review process that includes assessing how the upstream community is likely to understand the proposal. Sometimes how things are communicated is more important than how they are coded. Polishing inline comments and git commit messages help ensure high-quality communication, along with a commitment to respond quickly to review feedback and conducting regular follow-ups until a contribution is finalized and accepted.

Start small to grow expertise and reputation In addition to keeping the open source contribution policy lean and nimble, it is also good to start practical contributions with small issues. Don t aim to contribute massive features until you have a track record of being able to make multiple small contributions. Keep in mind that not all open source projects are equal. Each has its own culture, written and unwritten rules, development process, documented requirements (which may be outdated) and more. Starting with a tiny contribution, even just a typo fix, is a good way to validate how code submissions, reviews and approvals work in a particular project. Once you have staff who have successfully landed smaller contributions, you can start planning larger proposals. The exact same proposal might be unsuccessful when proposed by a new person, and successful when proposed by a person who already has a reputation for prior high-quality work.

Embrace all and any publicity you get Some companies have concerns about their employees working in the open. Indeed, every email and code patch an employee submits, and all related discussions become public. This may initially sound scary, but is actually a potential source of good publicity. Employees need to be trained on how to conduct themselves publicly, and the discussions about code should contain only information strictly related to the code, without any references to actual production environments or other sensitive information. In the long run most employees contributing have a positive impact and the company should reap the benefits of positive publicity. If there are quality issues or employee judgment issues, hiding the activity or forcing employees to contribute with pseudonyms is not a proper solution. Instead, the problems should be addressed at the root, and bad behavior addressed rather than tolerated. When people are working publicly, there tends to also be some degree of additional pride involved, which motivates people to try their best. Contributions need to be public for the sponsoring corporation to later be able to claim copyright or licenses. Considering that thousands of companies participate in open source every day, the prevalence of bad publicity is quite low, and the benefits far exceed the risks.

Scratch your own itch When choosing what to contribute, select things that benefit your own company. This is not purely about being selfish - often people working on resolving a problem they suffer from are the same people with the best expertise of what the problem is and what kind of solution is optimal. Also, the issues that are most pressing to your company are more likely to be universally useful to solve than any random bug or feature request in the upstream project s issue tracker.

Remember there are many ways to help upstream While submitting code is often considered the primary way to contribute, please keep in mind there are also other highly impactful ways to contribute. Submitting high-quality bug reports will help developers quickly identify and prioritize issues to fix. Providing good research, benchmarks, statistics or feedback helps guide development and the project make better design decisions. Documentation, translations, organizing events and providing marketing support can help increase adoption and strengthen long-term viability for the project. In some of the largest open source projects there are already far more pending contributions than the core maintainers can process. Therefore, developers who contribute code should also get into the habit of contributing reviews. As Linus law states, given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow. Reviewing other contributors submissions will help improve quality, and also alleviate the pressure on core maintainers who are the only ones providing feedback. Reviewing code submitted by others is also a great learning opportunity for the reviewer. The reviewer does not need to be better than the submitter - any feedback is useful; merely posting review feedback is not the same thing as making an approval decision. Many projects are also happy to accept monetary support and sponsorships. Some offer specific perks in return. By human nature, the largest sponsors always get their voice heard in important decisions, as no open source project wants to take actions that scare away major financial contributors.

Starting is the hardest part Long-term success in open source comes from a positive feedback loop of an ever-increasing number of users and collaborators. As seen in the examples of countless corporations contributing open source, the benefits are concrete, and the process usually runs well after the initial ramp-up and organizational learning phase has passed. In open source ecosystems, contributing upstream should be as natural as paying vendors in any business. If you are using open source and not contributing at all, you likely have latent business risks without realizing it. You don t want to wake up one morning to learn that your top talent left because they were forbidden from participating in open source for the company s benefit, or that you were fined due to CRA violations and mismanagement in sharing security fixes with the correct parties. The faster you start with the process, the less likely those risks will materialize.

For some time I ve been noticing news reports about PFAs [1]. I hadn t thought much about that issue, I grew up when leaded petrol was standard, when almost all thermometers had mercury, when all small batteries had mercury, and I had generally considered that I had already had so many nasty chemicals in my body that as long as I don t eat bottom feeding seafood often I didn t have much to worry about. I already had a higher risk of a large number of medical issues than I d like due to decisions made before I was born and there s not much to do about it given that there are regulations restricting the emissions of lead, mercury etc. I just watched a Veritasium video about Teflon and the PFA poisoning related to it s production [2]. This made me realise that it s more of a problem than I realised and it s a problem that s getting worse. PFA levels in the parts-per-trillion range in the environment can cause parts-per-billion in the body which increases the risks of several cancers and causes other health problems. Fortunately there is some work being done on water filtering, you can get filters for a home level now and they are working on filters that can work at a sufficient scale for a city water plant. There is a map showing PFAs in the environment in Australia which shows some sites with concerning levels that are near residential areas [3]. One of the major causes for that in Australia is fire retardant foam Australia has never had much if any Teflon manufacturing AFAIK. Also they noted that donating blood regularly can decrease levels of PFAs in the bloodstream. So presumably people who have medical conditions that require receiving donated blood regularly will have really high levels.

• [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluoroalkoxy_alkane
• [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC2eSujzrUY
• [3] https://pfas.australianmap.net/

To run a SMP system with multiple CPUs you need to have CPUs that are identical , the question is what does identical mean. In this case I m interested in Intel CPUs because SMP motherboards and server systems for Intel CPUs are readily available and affordable. There are people selling matched pairs of CPUs on ebay which tend to be more expensive than randomly buying 2 of the same CPU model, so if you can identify 2 CPUs that are identical which are sold separately then you can save some money. Also if you own a two CPU system with only one CPU installed then buying a second CPU to match the first is cheaper and easier than buying two more CPUs and removing a perfectly working CPU.

Intel (R) Xeon (R)
E5-2640V4
SR2NZ 2.40GHZ
J717B324 (e4)
7758S4100843

Above is a pic of 2 E5-2640v4 CPUs that were in a SMP system I purchased along with a plain ASCII representation of the text on one of them. The bottom code (starting with 77 ) is apparently the serial number, one of the two codes above it is what determines how identical those CPUs are. The code on the same line as the nominal clock speed (in this case SR2NZ) is the spec number which is sometimes referred to as sspec [1]. The line below the sspec and above the serial number has J717B324 which doesn t have a google hit. I looked at more than 20 pics of E5-2640v4 CPUs on ebay, they all had the code SR2NZ but had different numbers on the line below. I conclude that the number on the line below probably indicates the model AND stepping while SR2NZ just means E5-2640v4 regardless of stepping. As I wasn t able to find another CPU on ebay with the same number on the line below the sspec I believe that it will be unreasonably difficult to get a match for an existing CPU. For the purpose of matching CPUs I believe that if the line above the serial number matches then the CPUs can be used together. I am not certain that CPUs with this number slightly mismatching won t work but I definitely wouldn t want to spend money on CPUs with this number being different.

smpboot: CPU0: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2699A v4 @ 2.40GHz (family: 0x6, model: 0x4f, stepping: 0x1)

When you boot Linux the kernel identifies the CPU in a manner like the above, the combination of family and model seem to map to one spec number. The combination of family, model, and stepping should be all that s required to have them work together. I think that Intel did the wrong thing in not making this clearer. It would have been very easy to print the stepping on the CPU case next to the sspec or the CPU model name. It also wouldn t have been too hard to make the CPU provide the magic number that is apparently the required match for SMP to the OS. Having the Intel web site provide a mapping of those numbers to steppings of CPUs also shouldn t be difficult for them. If anyone knows more about these issues please let me know.

• [1] https://tinyurl.com/28nedh9r

The Internet has changed a lot in the last 40+ years. Fads have come and gone. Network protocols have been designed, deployed, adopted, and abandoned. Industries have come and gone. The types of people on the internet have changed a lot. The number of people on the internet has changed a lot, creating an information medium unlike anything ever seen before in human history. There s a lot of good things about the Internet as of 2025, but there s also an inescapable hole in what it used to be, for me. I miss being able to throw a site up to send around to friends to play with without worrying about hordes of AI-feeding HTML combine harvesters DoS-ing my website, costing me thousands in network transfer for the privilege. I miss being able to put a lightly authenticated game server up and not worry too much at night wondering if that process is now mining bitcoin. I miss being able to run a server in my home closet. Decades of cat and mouse games have rendered running a mail server nearly impossible. Those who are brave enough to try are met with weekslong stretches of delivery failures and countless hours yelling ineffectually into a pipe that leads from the cheerful lobby of some disinterested corporation directly into a void somewhere 4 layers below ground level. I miss the spirit of curiosity, exploration, and trying new things. I miss building things for fun without having to worry about being too successful, after which security offices start demanding my supplier paperwork in triplicate as heartfelt thanks from their engineering teams. I miss communities that are run because it is important to them, not for ad revenue. I miss community operated spaces and having more than four websites that are all full of nothing except screenshots of each other. Every other page I find myself on now has an AI generated click-bait title, shared for rage-clicks all brought-to-you-by-our-sponsors completely covered wall-to-wall with popup modals, telling me how much they respect my privacy, with the real content hidden at the bottom bracketed by deceptive ads served by companies that definitely know which new coffee shop I went to last month. This is wrong, and those who have seen what was know it. I can t keep doing it. I m not doing it any more. I reject the notion that this is as it needs to be. It is wrong. The hole left in what the Internet used to be must be filled. I will fill it.

What comes before part b? Throughout the 2000s, some of my favorite memories were from LAN parties at my friends places. Dragging your setup somewhere, long nights playing games, goofing off, even building software all night to get something working being able to do something fiercely technical in the context of a uniquely social activity. It wasn t really much about the games or the projects it was an excuse to spend time together, just hanging out. A huge reason I learned so much in college was that campus was a non-stop LAN party we could freely stand up servers, talk between dorms on the LAN, and hit my dorm room computer from the lab. Things could go from individual to social in the matter of seconds. The Internet used to work this way my dorm had public IPs handed out by DHCP, and my workstation could serve traffic from anywhere on the internet. I haven t been back to campus in a few years, but I d be surprised if this were still the case. In December of 2021, three of us got together and connected our houses together in what we now call The Promised LAN. The idea is simple fill the hole we feel is gone from our lives. Build our own always-on 24/7 nonstop LAN party. Build a space that is intrinsically social, even though we re doing technical things. We can freely host insecure game servers or one-off side projects without worrying about what someone will do with it. Over the years, it s evolved very slowly we haven t pulled any all-nighters. Our mantra has become old growth , building each layer carefully. As of May 2025, the LAN is now 19 friends running around 25 network segments. Those 25 networks are connected to 3 backbone nodes, exchanging routes and IP traffic for the LAN. We refer to the set of backbone operators as The Bureau of LAN Management . Combined decades of operating critical infrastructure has driven The Bureau to make a set of well-understood, boring, predictable, interoperable and easily debuggable decisions to make this all happen. Nothing here is exotic or even technically interesting.

Applications of trusting trust The hardest part, however, is rejecting the idea that anything outside our own LAN is untrustworthy nearly irreversible damage inflicted on us by the Internet. We have solved this by not solving it. We strictly control membership the absolute hard minimum for joining the LAN requires 10 years of friendship with at least one member of the Bureau, with another 10 years of friendship planned. Members of the LAN can veto new members even if all other criteria is met. Even with those strict rules, there s no shortage of friends that meet the qualifications but we are not equipped to take that many folks on. It s hard to join -both socially and technically. Doing something malicious on the LAN requires a lot of highly technical effort upfront, and it would endanger a decade of friendship. We have relied on those human, social, interpersonal bonds to bring us all together. It s worked for the last 4 years, and it should continue working until we think of something better. We assume roommates, partners, kids, and visitors all have access to The Promised LAN. If they re let into our friends' network, there is a level of trust that works transitively for us I trust them to be on mine. This LAN is not for security , rather, the network border is a social one. Benign hacking in the original sense of misusing systems to do fun and interesting things is encouraged. Robust ACLs and firewalls on the LAN are, by definition, an interpersonal not technical failure. We all trust every other network operator to run their segment in a way that aligns with our collective values and norms. Over the last 4 years, we ve grown our own culture and fads around half of the people on the LAN have thermal receipt printers with open access, for printing out quips or jokes on each other s counters. It s incredible how much network transport and a trusting culture gets you there s a 3-node IRC network, exotic hardware to gawk at, radios galore, a NAS storage swap, LAN only email, and even a SIP phone network of redphones .

DIY We do not wish to, nor will we, rebuild the internet. We do not wish to, nor will we, scale this. We will never be friends with enough people, as hard as we may try. Participation hinges on us all having fun. As a result, membership will never be open, and we will never have enough connected LANs to deal with the technical and social problems that start to happen with scale. This is a feature, not a bug. This is a call for you to do the same. Build your own LAN. Connect it with friends homes. Remember what is missing from your life, and fill it in. Use software you know how to operate and get it running. Build slowly. Build your community. Do it with joy. Remember how we got here. Rebuild a community space that doesn t need to be mediated by faceless corporations and ad revenue. Build something sustainable that brings you joy. Rebuild something you use daily. Bring back what we re missing.

I was not aware that one can write bad Markdown, since Markdown has such a simple syntax, that I thought you just write, and it s fine. Na ve, I know! I ve started editing the files for this blog/site with Visual Studio Code too, and I had from another project the markdown lint extension installed, so as I was opening old files, more and more problems appeared. On a whim, I searched and found the lint all files command, and after running it, oops more than 400 problems! Now, some of them were entirely trivial and a matter of subjective style, like mixing both underscore and asterisk for emphasis in a single file, and asterisks and dashes for list items. Others, seemingly trivial like tab indentation, were actually also causing rendering issues, so fixing that solved a real cosmetic issue. But some of the issues flagged were actual problems. For example, one sentence that I had, was: Here something was interpreted as an (invalid) HTML tag, and not rendered at all. Another problem, but more minor, was that I had links to Wikipedia with spaces in the link name, which Visual Studio Code breaks at first space, rather than encoded spaces or underscores-based, as Wikipedia generates today. In the rendered output, Pandoc seemed to do the right think though. However, the most interesting issue that was flagged was no details in HTML links, i.e. links of the form: Which works for non-visually impaired people, but not for people using assistive technologies. And while trying to fix this, it turns out that you can do much better, for everyone, because here is really non-descriptive. You can use either the content as label ( an article about configuring BIND ), or the destination ( an article on this-website ), rather than the plain here . The only, really only check I disabled, was tweaking the trailing punctuation checks in headers, as I really like to write a header that ends with exclamation marks. I like exclamation marks in general! So why not use them in headers too. The question mark is allowlisted by default, though that I use rarely. During the changes/tweaks, I also did random improvements, but I didn t change the updated tag, since most of them were minor. But a non-minor thing was tweaking the CSS for code blocks, since I had a really stupid non-symmetry between top and bottom padding (5px vs 0), and which I don t know where it came from. But the MDN article on padding has as an example exactly what I had (except combined, I had it split). Did I just copy blindly? Possible So, all good and then, and I hope this doesn t trigger a flow of updates on any aggregators, since all the changes were really trivial. And while I don t write often, I did touch about 60 posts or pages, ouch! Who knew that changing editors can have such a large impact

A long, long time ago I have a few pictures on this blog, mostly in earlier years, because even with small pictures, the git repository became 80MiB soon this is not much in absolute terms, but the actual Markdown/Haskell/CSS/HTML total size is tiny compared to the picture, PDFs and fonts. I realised I need a better solution, probably about ten years ago, and that I should investigate git-annex. Then time passed, and I heard about git-lfs, so I thought that s the way forward. Now, I recently got interested again into doing something about this repository, and started researching.

Detour: git-lfs I was sure that git-lfs, being supported by large providers, would be the modern solution. But to my surprise, git-lfs is very server centric, which in hindsight makes sense, but for a home setup, it s not very good. Maybe I misunderstood, but git-lfs is more a protocol/method for a forge to store files, rather than an end-user solution. But then you need to backup those files separately (together with the rest of the forge), or implement another way of safeguarding them. Further details such as the fact that it keeps two copies of the files (one in the actual checked-out tree, one in internal storage) means it s not a good solution. Well, for my blog yes, but not in general. Then posts on Reddit about horror stories people being locked out of github due to quota, as an example, or this Stack Overflow post about git-lfs constraining how one uses git, convinced me that s not what I want. To each their own, but not for me I might want to push this blog s repo to github, but I definitely wouldn t want in that case to pay for github storage for my blog images (which are copies, not originals). And yes, even in 2025, those quotas are real GitHub limits and I agree with GitHub, storage and large bandwidth can t be free.

Back to the future: git-annex So back to git-annex. I thought it s going to be a simple thing, but oh boy, was I wrong. It took me half a week of continuous (well, in free time) reading and discussions with LLMs to understand a bit how it works. I think, honestly, it s a bit too complex, which is why the workflows page lists seven (!) levels of workflow complexity, from fully-managed, to fully-manual. IMHO, respect to the author for the awesome tool, but if you need a web app to help you manage git, it hints that the tool is too complex. I made the mistake of running git annex sync once, to realise it actually starts pushing to my upstream repo and creating new branches and whatnot, so after enough reading, I settled on workflow 6/7, since I don t want another tool to manage my git history. Maybe I m an outlier here, but everything automatic is a bit too much for me. Once you do managed yourself how git-annex works (on the surface, at least), it is a pretty cool thing. It uses a git-annex git branch to store metainformation, and that is relatively clean. If you do run git annex sync, it creates some extra branches, which I don t like, but meh.

Trick question: what is a remote? One of the most confusing things about git-annex was understanding its remote concept. I thought a remote is a place where you replicate your data. But not, that s a special remote. A normal remote is a git remote, but which is expected to be git/ssh/with command line access. So if you have a git+ssh remote, git-annex will not only try to push it s above-mentioned branch, but also copy the files. If such a remote is on a forge that doesn t support git-annex, then it will complain and get confused. Of course, if you read the extensive docs, you just do git config remote.<name>.annex-ignore true, and it will understand that it should not sync to it. But, aside, from this case, git-annex expects that all checkouts and clones of the repository are both metadata and data. And if you do any annex commands in them, all other clones will know about them! This can be unexpected, and you find people complaining about it, but nowadays there s a solution:

git clone   dir && cd dir
git config annex.private true
git annex init "temp copy"

This is important. Any leaf git clone must be followed by that annex.private true config, especially on CI/CD machines. Honestly, I don t understand why by default clones should be official data stores, but it is what it is. I settled on not making any of my checkouts stable , but only the actual storage places. Except those are not git repositories, but just git-annex storage things. I.e., special remotes. Is it confusing enough yet ?

Special remotes The special remotes, as said, is what I expected to be the normal git annex remotes, i.e. places where the data is stored. But well, they exist, and while I m only using a couple simple ones, there is a large number of them. Among the interesting ones: git-lfs, a remote that allows also storing the git repository itself (git-remote-annex), although I m bit confused about this one, and most of the common storage providers via the rclone remote. Plus, all of the special remotes support encryption, so this is a really neat way to store your files across a large number of things, and handle replication, number of copies, from which copy to retrieve, etc. as you with.

And many of other features git-annex has tons of other features, so to some extent, the sky s the limit. Automatic selection of what to add git it vs plain git, encryption handling, number of copies, clusters, computed files, etc. etc. etc. I still think it s cool but too complex, though!

Uses Aside from my blog post, of course. I ve seen blog posts/comments about people using git-annex to track/store their photo collection, and I could see very well how the remote encrypted repos any of the services supported by rclone could be an N+2 copy or so. For me, tracking photos would be a bit too tedious, but it could maybe work after more research. A more practical thing would probably be replicating my local movie collection (all legal, to be clear) better than just run rsync from time to time and tracking the large files in it via git-annex. That s an exercise for another day, though, once I get more mileage with it - my blog pictures are copies, so I don t care much if they get lost, but movies are primary online copies, and I don t want to re-dump the discs. Anyway, for later.

Migrating to git-annex Migrating here means ending in a state where all large files are in git-annex, and the plain git repo is small. Just moving the files to git annex at the current head doesn t remove them from history, so your git repository is still large; it won t grow in the future, but remains with old size (and contains the large files in its history). In my mind, a nice migration would be: run a custom command, and all the history is migrated to git-annex, so I can go back in time and the still use git-annex. I na vely expected this would be easy and already available, only to find comments on the git-annex site with unsure git-filter-branch calls and some web discussions. This is the discussion on the git annex website, but it didn t make me confident it would do the right thing. But that discussion is now 8 years old. Surely in 2025, with git-filter-repo, it s easier? And, maybe I m missing something, but it is not. Not from the point of view of plain git, that s easy, but because interacting with git-annex, which stores its data in git itself, so doing this properly across successive steps of a repo (when replaying the commits) is, I think, not well defined behaviour. So I was stuck here for a few days, until I got an epiphany: As I m going to rewrite the repository, of course I m keeping a copy of it from before git-annex. If so, I don t need the history, back in time, to be correct in the sense of being able to retrieve the binary files too. It just needs to be correct from the point of view of the actual Markdown and Haskell files that represent the meat of the blog. This simplified the problem a lot. At first, I wanted to just skip these files, but this could also drop commits (git-filter-repo, by default, drops the commits if they re empty), and removing the files loses information - when they were added, what were the paths, etc. So instead I came up with a rather clever idea, if I might say so: since git-annex replaces files with symlinks already, just replace the files with symlinks in the whole history, except symlinks that are dangling (to represent the fact that files are missing). One could also use empty files, but empty files are more valid in a sense than dangling symlinks, hence why I settled on those. Doing this with git-filter-repo is easy, in newer versions, with the new --file-info-callback. Here is the simple code I used:

import os
import os.path
import pathlib

SKIP_EXTENSIONS= 'jpg', 'jpeg', 'png', 'pdf', 'woff', 'woff2' 
FILE_MODES =  b"100644", b"100755" 
SYMLINK_MODE = b"120000"

fas_string = filename.decode()
path = pathlib.PurePosixPath(fas_string)
ext = path.suffix.removeprefix('.')

if ext not in SKIP_EXTENSIONS:
  return (filename, mode, blob_id)

if mode not in FILE_MODES:
  return (filename, mode, blob_id)

print(f"Replacing ' filename ' (extension '. ext ') in  os.getcwd() ")

symlink_target = '/none/binary-file-removed-from-git-history'.encode()
new_blob_id = value.insert_file_with_contents(symlink_target)
return (filename, SYMLINK_MODE, new_blob_id)

This goes and replaces files with a symlink to nowhere, but the symlink should explain why it s dangling. Then later renames or moving the files around work naturally , as the rename/mv doesn t care about file contents. Then, when the filtering is done via:

git-filter-repo --file-info-callback <(cat ~/filter-big.py ) --force

It is easy to onboard to git annex:

• remove all dangling symlinks
• copy the (binary) files from the original repository
• since they re named the same, and in the same places, git sees a type change
• then simply run git annex add on those files

For me it was easy as all such files were in a few directories, so just copying those directories back, a few git-annex add commands, and done. Of course, then adding a few rsync remotes, git annex copy --to, and the repository was ready. Well, I also found a bug in my own Hakyll setup: on a fresh clone, when the large files are just dangling symlinks, the builder doesn t complain, just ignores the images. Will have to fix.

Other resources This is a blog that I read at the beginning, and I found it very useful as an intro: https://switowski.com/blog/git-annex/. It didn t help me understand how it works under the covers, but it is well written. The author does use the sync command though, which is too magic for me, but also agrees about its complexity

The proof is in the pudding And now, for the actual first image to be added that never lived in the old plain git repository. It s not full-res/full-size, it s cropped a bit on the bottom. Earlier in the year, I went to Paris for a very brief work trip, and I walked around a bit it was more beautiful than what I remembered from way way back. So a bit random selection of a picture, but here it is:

Un bateau sur la Seine

Enjoy!

We are very excited to announce that Debian has selected nine contributors to work under mentorship on a variety of projects with us during the Google Summer of Code. Here is a list of the projects and students, along with details of the tasks to be performed.

---

Project: Quality assurance and continuous integration for biological and medical applications inside Debian

• Intern: Harish Chavre

Deliverables of the project: Continuous integration tests for Debian Med applications lacking a test, Quality Assurance review and bug fixing if issues might be uncovered.

---

Project: Device-specific Tweaks Management

• Intern: Mohammed ElDegwi

Deliverables of the project: Analysis and discussion of the current state of device tweaks management in Debian and Mobian. Proposal for a unified, run-time approach. Packaging of this service and tweaks data/configuration for at least one device.

---

Project: Enhancing Debian packages with ROCm GPU acceleration

• Interns: Spaarsh, utk4r-sh

Deliverables of the project: New Debian packages with GPU support. Enhanced GPU support within existing Debian packages. More autopackagetests running on the Debian ROCm CI.

---

Project: Make Debian for Raspberry Pi Build Again

• Interns: Kurva Prashanth

Deliverables of the project: Refreshing the set of daily-built images. Having the set of daily-built images become automatic again that is, go back to the promise of having it daily-built. Write an Ansible playbook/Chef recipe/Puppet whatsitsname to define a virtual serve and have it build daily. Do the (very basic!) hardware testing on several Raspberry computers. Do note, naturally, this will require having access to the relevant hardware.

---

Project: Package LLM Inference Libraries

• Intern: k1000dai

Deliverables of the project: Eventually I hope we can make vLLM into Debian archive, based on which we can deliver something for LLM inference out-of-the-box. If the amount of work eventually turns to be beyond my expectation, I'm still happy to see how far we can go towards this goal. If the amount of work required for vLLM is less than I expected, we can also look at something else like SGLang, another open source LLM inference library.

---

Project: Autopkgtests for the rsync package

• Intern: puer robustus

Deliverables of the project: Autopkgtests for the rsync package.

---

Project: Enhancing Salsa CI in Debian

• Interns: Aayush (@44yu5h), aquilamacedo

Deliverables of the project: More features, robustness, speed.

---

Congratulations and welcome to all the contributors! The Google Summer of Code program is possible in Debian thanks to the efforts of Debian Developers and Debian Contributors that dedicate part of their free time to mentor contributors and outreach tasks. Join us and help extend Debian! You can follow the contributors' weekly reports on the debian-outreach mailing-list, chat with us on our IRC channel or reach out to the individual projects' team mailing lists.

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!

Posted on May 25, 2025
Tags: madeof:atoms, craft:sewing, FreeSoftWear, GNU Terry Pratchett

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

This morning, I went to make my usual cup of coffee. I was given an espresso machine for Christmas, and I ve developed this technique for making a warm drink that hits the spot every time.I ll start by turning on my espresso machine and starting a single shot of espresso. It dispenses and drips while I m working on the other parts.I then grab a coffee cup. Usually one of the taller ones. For maybe the bottom inch or two of the cup, that gets sugar and chocolate milk. Microwave for 45 seconds, pour in the espresso, then wash out the actual espresso from the metal cup with milk. Pour all of that in, another 45 seconds in the microwave, a few quick stirs, and you re all set.To the actual baristas out there, that probably sounds horrible. It probably sounds like the worst possible recommendation for a morning coffee ever.But, you know what? It works.So, I went to put my coffee into the microwave today, and I realized that someone else had put the glass plate for the microwave into the sink after accidentally spilling their breakfast on it.Instead of saying, well, I m not going to have my coffee this morning, I grabbed a large plate. I remembered the physics of levers from high school, and I understood that if I balanced everything just right, it would heat my coffee up.And well, here I am. With an un-spilled coffee and a story to tell.My point here is actually pretty simple, and this is before I even read any messages for the day. People with much more formal educations sometimes look at the guy engineering coffee with his microwave and think, what is this guy doing?!? All I m doing is making a really good cup of coffee. And to be honest, it tastes amazing.That s all. Have a wonderful 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.

Review: Sixteen Ways to Defend a Walled City, by K.J. Parker

Series:	Siege #1
Publisher:	Orbit
Copyright:	April 2019
ISBN:	0-316-27080-6
Format:	Kindle
Pages:	349

Sixteen Ways to Defend a Walled City is... hm, honestly, I'm not sure what the genre of this novel is. It is a story about medieval engineering and siege weapons in a Rome-inspired secondary world that so far as I can tell is not meant to match ours. There is not a hint of magic. It's not technically a fantasy, but it's marketed like a fantasy, and it's not historical fiction nor is it attempting to be alternate history. The most common description is a fantasy of logistics, so I guess I'll go with that, as long as you understand that the fantasy here is of the non-magical sort. K.J. Parker is a pen name for Tom Holt. Orhan is Colonel-in-Chief of the Engineers for the Robur empire, even though he's a milkface, not a blueskin like a proper Robur. (Both of those racial terms are quite offensive.) He started out as a slave, learned a trade, joined the navy as a shipwright, and worked his way up the ranks through luck and enemy action. He's canny, practical, highly respected by his men, happy to cheat and steal to get material for his projects and wages for his people, and just wants to build literal bridges. Nice, sturdy bridges that let people get from one place to another the short way. When this book opens, Orhan is in Classis trying to requisition some rope. He is saved from discovery of his forged paperwork by pirates burning down the warehouse that held all of the rope, and then saved from the pirates by the sorts of coincidences that seem to happen to Orhan all the time. A few subsequent discoveries about what the pirates were after, and news of another unexpected attack on the empire, make Orhan nervous enough that he takes his men to do a job as far away from the City at the heart of the empire as possible. It's just his luck to return in time to find slaughtered troops and to have to sneak his men into a City already under siege. Sixteen Ways to Defend a Walled City is told in the first person by Orhan, with an internal justification that the reader only discovers at the end of the book. That means your enjoyment of this book is going to depend a lot on how much you like Orhan's voice. This mostly worked for me; his voice is an odd combination of chatty, self-deprecating, and brusque, and it took a bit for me to get used to it, but I came around. This book is clearly competence porn nearly all the fun of this book is seeing what desperate plan Orhan will come up with next so it helps that Orhan does indeed come across as competent. The part that did not work for me was the morality. You would think from the title that would be straightforward: The City is under siege, people want to capture it and kill everyone, Orhan is on the inside, and his job is to keep them out. That would have been the morality of simplistic military fiction, but most of the appeal was in watching the problem-solving anyway. That's how the story starts, but then Parker started dropping hints of more complexity. Orhan is a disfavored minority and the Robur who run the empire are racist assholes, even though Orhan mostly gets along with the ones who work with him closely. Orhan says a few things that make the reader wonder whether the City warrants defending, and it becomes less clear whether Orhan's loyalties were as solid as they appeared to be. Parker then offers a few moral dilemmas and has Orhan not follow them in the expected directions, making me wonder where Parker was going with the morality of this story. And then we find out that the answer is nowhere. Parker is going nowhere. None of that setup has a payoff, and the ending is deeply unsatisfying and arguably pointless. I am not sure this is an objective analysis. This is one of those books where I would not be surprised to see someone else praise its realism. Orhan is in some ways a more likely figure than the typical hero of a book. He likes accomplishing things, he's a cheat and a liar when that serves his purposes, he's loyal to the people he considers friends in a way that often doesn't involve consulting them about what they want, and he makes decisions mostly on vibes and stubbornness. Both his cynicism and his idealism are different types of masks; beneath both, he's an incoherent muddle. You could argue that we're all that sort of muddle, deep down, and the consistent idealists are the unrealistic (and frightening) ones, and I think Parker may be attempting exactly that argument. I know some readers like this sort of fallibly human incoherence. But wow did I ever loathe this ending because I was not reading this book for a realistic psychological profile of an average guy. I was here for the competence porn, for the fantasy of logistics, for the experience of watching someone have a plan and get shit done. Apparently that extends to needing him to be competent at morality as well, or at least think about it as hard as he thinks about siege weapons. One of the reasons why I am primarily a genre reader is that I don't read books for depressing psychological profiles. There are enough of those in the news. I read books to spend some time in a world better than mine, where things work out the way that they are supposed to, or at least in a way that's satisfying. The other place where this book interfered with my vibes is that it's about a war, and a lot of Orhan's projects are finding more efficient ways to kill people. Parker takes a "war is hell" perspective, and Orhan gets deeply upset at the graphic sights of mangled human bodies that are the frequent results of his plans. I feel weird complaining about this because yes, it's good to be aware of the horrific things that we do to other people in wars, but man, I just wanted to watch some effective project management. I want to enjoy unexpected lateral thinking, appreciate the friendly psychological manipulation involved in getting a project to deliver on deadline, and watch someone solve logistical problems. Battlefields provide an endless supply of interesting challenges, but then Parker feels compelled to linger on the brutal consequences of Orhan's ideas and now I'm depressed and sickened rather than enjoying myself. I really wanted to like this book, and for a lot of the book I did, but that ending was a bottomless pit that sucked away all my enjoyment and retroactively made the rest of the book feel worse. I so wanted Parker to be going somewhere clever and surprising, and the disappointment when none of that happened was intense. This is probably an excessively negative reaction, and I will not be surprised when other people get along with this book better than I did, but not only will I not be recommending it, I'm now rather dubious about reading any more Parker. Followed by How to Rule an Empire and Get Away With It. Rating: 5 out of 10

Review: Beyond Pain, by Kit Rocha

Series:	Beyond #3
Publisher:	Kit Rocha
Copyright:	December 2013
ASIN:	B00GIA4GN8
Format:	Kindle
Pages:	328

Beyond Pain is a science fiction dystopian erotic romance novel and a direct sequel to Beyond Control. Following the romance series convention, each book features new protagonists who were supporting characters in the previous book. You could probably start here if you wanted, but there are significant spoilers here for earlier books in the series. I read this book as part of the Beyond Series Bundle (Books 1-3), which is what the sidebar information is for. Six has had a brutally hard life. She was rescued from an awful situation in a previous book and is now lurking around the edges of the Sector Four gang, oddly fascinated (as are we all) with their constant sexuality and trying to decide if she wants to, and can, be part of their world. Bren is one of the few people she lets get close: a huge bruiser who likes cage fights and pain but treats Six with a protective, careful respect that she finds comforting. This book is the story of Six and Bren getting to the bottom of each other's psychological hangups while the O'Kanes start taking over Six's former sector. Yes, as threatened, I read another entry in the dystopian erotica series because I keep wondering how these people will fuck their way into a revolution. This is not happening very quickly, but it seems obvious that is the direction the series is going. It's been a while since I've reviewed one of these, so here's another variation of the massive disclaimer: I think erotica is harder to review than any other genre because what people like is so intensely personal and individual. This is not even an attempt at an erotica review. I'm both wholly unqualified and also less interested in that part of the book, which should lead you to question my reading choices since that's a good half of the book. Rather, I'm reading these somewhat for the plot and mostly for the vibes. This is not the most competent collection of individuals, and to the extent that they are, it's mostly because the men (who are, as a rule, charismatic but rather dim) are willing to listen to the women. What they are good at is communication, or rather, they're good about banging their heads (and other parts) against communication barriers until they figure out a way around them. Part of this is an obsession with consent that goes quite a bit deeper than the normal simplistic treatment. When you spend this much time trying to understand what other people want, you have to spend a lot of time communicating about sex, and in these books that means spending a lot of time communicating about everything else as well. They are also obsessively loyal and understand the merits of both collective action and in making space for people to do the things that they are the best at, while still insisting that people contribute when they can. On the surface, the O'Kanes are a dictatorship, but they're run more like a high-functioning collaboration. Dallas leads because Dallas is good at playing the role of leader (and listening to Lex), which is refreshingly contrary to how things work in the real world right now. I want to be clear that not only is this erotica, this is not the sort of erotica where there's a stand-alone plot that is periodically interrupted by vaguely-motivated sex scenes that you can skim past. These people use sex to communicate, and therefore most of the important exchanges in the book are in the middle of a sex scene. This is going to make this novel, and this series, very much not to the taste of a lot of people, and I cannot be emphatic enough about that warning. But, also, this is such a fascinating inversion. It's common in media for the surface plot of the story to be full of sexual tension, sometimes to the extent that the story is just a metaphor for the sex that the characters want to have. This is the exact opposite of that: The sex is a metaphor for everything else that's going on in the story. These people quite literally fuck their way out of their communication problems, and not in an obvious or cringy way. It's weirdly fascinating? It's also possible that my reaction to this series is so unusual as to not be shared by a single other reader. Anyway, the setup in this story is that Six has major trust issues and Bren is slowly and carefully trying to win her trust. It's a classic hurt/comfort setup, and if that had played out in the way that this story often does, Bren would have taken the role of the gentle hero and Six the role of the person he rescued. That is not at all where this story goes. Six doesn't need comfort; Six needs self-confidence and the ability to demand what she wants, and although the way Beyond Pain gets her there is a little ham-handed, it mostly worked for me. As with Beyond Shame, I felt like the moral of the story is that the O'Kane men are just bright enough to stop doing stupid things at the last possible moment. I think Beyond Pain worked a bit better than the previous book because Bren is not quite as dim as Dallas, so the reader doesn't have to suffer through quite as many stupid decisions. The erotica continues to mostly (although not entirely) follow traditional gender roles, with dangerous men and women who like attention. Presumably most people are reading these books for the sex, which I am wholly unqualified to review. For whatever it's worth, the physical descriptions are too mechanical for me, too obsessed with the precise structural assemblage of parts in novel configurations. I am not recommending (or disrecommending) these books, for a whole host of reasons. But I think the authors deserve to be rewarded for understanding that sex can be communication and that good communication about difficult topics is inherently interesting in a way that (at least for me) transcends the erotica. I bet I'm going to pick up another one of these about a year from now because I'm still thinking about these people and am still curious about how they are going to succeed. Followed by Beyond Temptation, an interstitial novella. The next novel is Beyond Jealousy. Rating: 6 out of 10

After careful consideration, I ve decided to embark on a new chapter in my professional journey. I ve left my position at AWS to dedicate at least the next six months to developing open source software and strengthening digital ecosystems. My focus will be on contributing to Linux distributions (primarily Debian) and other critical infrastructure components that our modern society depends on, but which may not receive adequate attention or resources.

The Evolution of Open Source Open source won. Over the 25+ years I ve been involved in the open source movement, I ve witnessed its remarkable evolution. Today, Linux powers billions of devices from tiny embedded systems and Android smartphones to massive cloud datacenters and even space stations. Examine any modern large-scale digital system, and you ll discover it s built upon thousands of open source projects. I feel the priority for the open source movement should no longer be increasing adoption, but rather solving how to best maintain the vast ecosystem of software. This requires building robust institutions and processes to secure proper resourcing and ensure the collaborative development process remains efficient and leads to ever-increasing quality of software.

What is Special About Debian? Debian, established in 1993 by Ian Murdock, stands as one of these institutions that has demonstrated exceptional resilience. There is no single authority, but instead a complex web of various stakeholders, each with their own goals and sources of funding. Every idea needs to be championed at length to a wide audience and implemented through a process of organic evolution. Thanks to this approach, Debian has been consistently delivering production-quality, universally useful software for over three decades. Having been a Debian Developer for more than ten years, I m well-positioned to contribute meaningfully to this community. If your organization relies on Debian or its derivatives such as Ubuntu, and you re interested in funding cyber infrastructure maintenance by sponsoring Debian work, please don t hesitate to reach out. This could include package maintenance and version currency, improving automated upgrade testing, general quality assurance and supply chain security enhancements.

Best way to reach me is by e-mail otto at debian.org. You can also book a 15-minute chat with me for a quick introduction.

Grow or Die My four-year tenure as a Software Development Manager at Amazon Web Services was very interesting. I m grateful for my time at AWS and proud of my team s accomplishments, particularly for creating an open source contribution process that got Amazon from zero to the largest external contributor to the MariaDB open source database. During this time, I got to experience and witness a plethora of interesting things. I will surely share some of my key learnings in future blog posts. Unfortunately, the rate of progress in this mammoth 1.5 million employee organization was slowing down, and I didn t feel I learned much new in the last years. This realization, combined with the opportunity cost of not spending enough time on new cutting-edge technology, motivated me to take this leap. Being a full-time open source developer may not be financially the most lucrative idea, but I think it is an excellent way to force myself to truly assess what is important on a global scale and what areas I want to contribute to. Working fully on open source presents a fascinating duality: you re not bound by any external resource or schedule limitations, and can the progress you make is directly proportional to how much energy you decide to invest. Yet, you also depend on collaboration with people you might never meet and who are not financially incentivized to collaborate. This will undoubtedly expose me to all kinds of challenges. But what would be better in fostering holistic personal growth? I know that deep down in my DNA, I am not made to stay cozy or to do easy things. I need momentum. OK, let s get going