  Software Release Practice HOWTO
  Eric S. Raymond <esr@thyrsus.com>
  2.2, 11 January 2000

  This HOWTO describes good release practices for Linux open-source pro-
  jects.  By following these practices, you will make it as easy as pos-
  sible for users to build your code and use it, and for other develop-
  ers to understand your code and cooperate with you to improve it.
  This document is a must-read for novice developers.  Experienced
  developers should review it when they are about to release a new pro-
  ject.  It will be revised periodically to reflect the evolution of
  good-practice standards.
  ______________________________________________________________________

  Table of Contents


  1. Introduction

     1.1 Why this document?
     1.2 New versions of this document

  2. Good project- and archive- naming practice

     2.1 Use GNU-style names with a stem and major.minor.patch numbering.
     2.2 But respect local conventions where appropriate
     2.3 Try hard to choose a name prefix that is unique and easy to type

  3. Good licensing and copyright practice: the theory

     3.1 Open source and copyrights
     3.2 What qualifies as open source

  4. Good licensing and copyright practice: the practice

     4.1 Make yourself or the FSF the copyright holder
     4.2 Use a license conformant to the Open Source Definition
     4.3 Don't write your own license if you can possibly avoid it.

  5. Good development practice

     5.1 Write either pure ANSI C or a portable scripting language
     5.2 Follow good C portability practices
     5.3 Use autoconf/automake/autoheader
     5.4 Sanity-check your code before release
     5.5 Sanity-check your documentation and READMEs before release

  6. Good distribution-making practice

     6.1 Make sure tarballs always unpack into a single new directory
     6.2 Have a README
     6.3 Respect and follow standard file naming practices
     6.4 Provide RPMs

  7. Good communication practice

     7.1 Announce to c.o.l.a
     7.2 Announce to a relevant topic newsgroup
     7.3 Have a website
     7.4 Host project mailing lists
     7.5 Release to major archives

  8. Good project-management practice



  ______________________________________________________________________

  1.  Introduction


  1.1.  Why this document?

  There is a large body of good-practice traditions for open-source code
  that helps other people port, use, and cooperate with developing it.
  Some of these conventions are traditional in the Unix world and
  predate Linux; others have developed recently in response to
  particular new tools and technologies such as the World Wide Web.

  This document will help you learn good practice.  It is organized into
  topic sections, each containing a series of checklist items.  Think of
  these as a pre-flight checklist for your distribution.


  1.2.  New versions of this document

  This document will be posted monthly to the newsgroups
  comp.os.linux.answers . The document is archived on a number of Linux
  FTP sites, including metalab.unc.edu in pub/Linux/docs/HOWTO.

  You can also view the latest version of this HOWTO on the World Wide
  Web via the URL  <http://metalab.unc.edu/LDP/HOWTO/Software-Release-
  Practice.html>.

  Feel free to mail any questions or comments about this HOWTO to Eric
  S. Raymond, esr@snark.thyrsus.com <mailto:esr@snark.thyrsus.com>.


  2.  Good project- and archive- naming practice

  As the load on maintainers of archives like Metalab, the PSA site and
  CPAN increases, there is an increasing trend for submissions to be
  processed partly or wholly by programs (rather than entirely by a
  human).

  This makes it more important for project and archive-file names to fit
  regular patterns that computer programs can parse and understand.


  2.1.  Use GNU-style names with a stem and major.minor.patch numbering.

  It's helpful to everybody if your archive files all have GNU-like
  names -- all-lower-case alphanumeric stem prefix, followed by a dash,
  followed by a version number, extension, and other suffixes.

  Let's suppose you have a project you call `foobar' at version 1,
  release 2, level 3.  If it's got just one archive part (presumably the
  sources), here's what its names should look


     foobar-1.2.3.tar.gz
        The source archive


     foobar.lsm
        The LSM file (assuming you're submitting to Metalab).


  Please don't use these:



     foobar123.tar.gz
        This looks to many programs like an archive for a project
        called`foobar123' with no version number.


     foobar1.2.3.tar.gz
        This looks to many programs like an archive for a project called
        `foobar1' at version 2.3.


     foobar-v1.2.3.tar.gz
        Many programs think this goes with a project called `foobar-v1'.


     foo_bar-1.2.3.tar.gz
        The underscore is hard for people to speak, type, and remember


     FooBar-1.2.3.tar.gz
        Unless you like looking like a marketing weenie.  This is also
        hard for people to speak, type, and remember.

  If you have to differentiate between source and binary archives, or
  between different kinds of binary, or express some kind of build
  option in the file name, please treat that as a file extension to go
  after the version number. That is, please do this:


     foobar-1.2.3.src.tar.gz
        sources


     foobar-1.2.3.bin.tar.gz
        binaries, type not specified


     foobar-1.2.3.bin.ELF.tar.gz
        ELF binaries


     foobar-1.2.3.bin.ELF.static.tar.gz
        ELF binaries statically linked


     foobar-1.2.3.bin.SPARC.tar.gz
        SPARC binaries

  Please don't use names like `foobar-ELF-1.2.3.tar.gz', because
  programs have a hard time telling type infixes (like `-ELF') from the
  stem.

  A good general form of name has these parts in order:


  1. project prefix

  2. dash

  3. version number

  4. dot

  5. "src" or "bin" (optional)

  6. dot or dash (dot preferred)

  7. binary type and options (optional)

  8. archiving and compression extensions


  2.2.  But respect local conventions where appropriate

  Some projects and communities have well-defined conventions for names
  and version numbers that aren't necessarily compatible with the above
  advice.  For instance, Apache modules are generally named like
  mod_foo, and have both their own version number and the version of
  Apache with which they work.  Likewise, Perl modules have version
  numbers that can be treated as floating point numbers (e.g., you might
  see 1.303 rather than 1.3.3), and the distributions are generally
  named Foo-Bar-1.303.tar.gz for version 1.303 of module Foo::Bar.

  Look for and respect the conventions of specialized communities and
  developers; for general use, follow the above guidelines.

  2.3.  Try hard to choose a name prefix that is unique and easy to type

  The stem prefix should be common to all a project's files, and it
  should be easy to read, type, and remember.  So please don't use
  underscores.  And don't capitalize or BiCapitalize without extremely
  good reason -- it messes up the natural human-eyeball search order and
  looks like some marketing weenie trying to be clever.

  It confuses people when two different projects have the same stem
  name.  So try to check for collisions before your first release.  A
  good place to check is the index file of Metalab
  <http://metalab.unc.edu/pub/Linux>.


  3.  Good licensing and copyright practice: the theory

  The license you choose defines the social contract you wish to set up
  among your co-developers and users.  The copyright you put on the
  software will function mainly as a legal assertion of your right to
  set license terms on the software and derivative works of the
  software.


  3.1.  Open source and copyrights

  Anything that is not public domain has a copyright, possibly more than
  one.  Under the Berne Convention (which has been U.S. law since 1978),
  the copyright does not have to be explicit.  That is, the authors of a
  work hold copyright even if there is no copyright notice.


  Who counts as an author can be very complicated, especially for
  software that has been worked on by many hands.  This is why licenses
  are important.  By setting out the terms under which material can be
  used, they grant rights to the users that protect them from arbitrary
  actions by the copyright holders.


  In proprietary software, the license terms are designed to protect the
  copyright.  They're a way of granting a few rights to users while
  reserving as much legal territory is possible for the owner (the
  copyright holder).  The copyright holder is very important, and the
  license logic so restrictive that the exact technicalities of the
  license terms are usually unimportant.

  In open-source software, the situation is usually the exact opposite;
  the copyright exists to protect the license.  The only rights the
  copyright holder always keeps are to enforce the license.  Otherwise,
  only a few rights are reserved and most choices pass to the user.  In
  particular, the copyright holder cannot change the terms on a copy you
  already have.  Therefore, in open-source software the copyright holder
  is almost irrelevant -- but the license terms are very important.

  Normally the copyright holder of a project is the current project
  leader or sponsoring organization.  Transfer of the project to a new
  leader is often signaled by changing the copyright holder.  However,
  this is not a hard and fast rule; many open-source projects have
  multiple copyright holders, and there is no instance on record of this
  leading to legal problems.

  Some projects choose to assign copyright to the Free Software
  Foundation, on the theory that it has an interest in defending open
  source and lawyers available to do it.


  3.2.  What qualifies as open source

  For licensing purposes, we can distinguish several different kinds of
  rights that a license may convey.  Rights to copy and redistribute,
  rights to use, rights to modify for personal use, and rights to
  redistribute modified copies.  A license may restrict or attach
  conditions to any of these rights.

  The Open Source Initiative <http://www.opensource.org> is the result
  of a great deal of thought about what makes software ``open source''
  or (in older terminology) ``free''.  Its constraints on licensing
  require that:


  1. An unlimited right to copy be granted.

  2. An unlimited right to use be granted.

  3. An unlimited right to modify for personal use be granted.

  The guidelines prohibit restrictions on redistribution of modified
  binaries; this meets the needs of software distributors, who need to
  be able to ship working code without encumbrance.  It allows authors
  to require that modified sources be redistributed as pristine sources
  plus patches, thus establishing the author's intentions and an ``audit
  trail'' of any changes by others.

  The OSD is the legal definition of the `OSI Certified Open Source'
  certification mark, and as good a definition of ``free software'' as
  anyone has ever come up with.  All of the standard licenses (MIT, BSD,
  Artistic, and GPL/LGPL) meet it (though some, like GPL, have other
  restrictions which you should understand before choosing it).

  Note that licenses which allow noncommercial use only do not qualify
  as open-source licenses, even if they are decorated with ``GPL'' or
  some other standard license.  They discriminate against particular
  occupations, persons, and groups.  They make life too complicated for
  CD-ROM distributors and others trying to spread open-source software
  commercially.


  4.  Good licensing and copyright practice: the practice

  Here's how to translate the theory above into practice:




  4.1.  Make yourself or the FSF the copyright holder

  In some cases, if you have a sponsoring organization behind you with
  lawyers, you might wish to give copyright to that organization.


  4.2.  Use a license conformant to the Open Source Definition

  The Open Source Definition is the community gold standard for
  licenses.  The OSD is not a license itself; rather, it defines a
  minimum set of rights that a license must guarantee in order to be
  considered an open-source license.  The OSD, and supporting materials,
  may be found at the web site of the Open Source Initiative
  <http://www.opensource.org>.


  4.3.  Don't write your own license if you can possibly avoid it.

  The widely-known OSD-conformant licenses have well-established
  interpretive traditions.  Developers (and, to the extent they care,
  users) know what they imply, and have a reasonable take on the risks
  and tradeoffs they involve.  Therefore, use one of the standard
  licenses carried on the OSI site if at all possible.

  If you must write your own license, be sure to have it certified by
  OSI.  This will avoid a lot of argument and overhead.  Unless you've
  been through it, you have no idea how nasty a licensing flamewar can
  get; people become passionate because the licenses are regarded as
  almost-sacred covenants touching the core values of the open-source
  community.

  Furthermore, the presence of an established interpretive tradition may
  prove important if your license is ever tested in court.  At time of
  writing (late 1999) there is no case law either supporting or
  invalidating any open-source license.  However, it is a legal doctrine
  (at least in the U.S., and probably in other common-law countries such
  as England and the rest of the British Commonwealth) that courts are
  supposed to interpret licenses and contracts according to the
  expectations and practices of the community in which they originated.


  5.  Good development practice

  Most of these are concerned with ensuring portability, not only across
  Linuxes but to other Unixes as well.  Being portable to other Unixes
  is not just a worthy form of professionalism and hackerly politeness,
  it's valuable insurance against future changes in Linux itself.

  Finally, other people will try to build your code on non-Linux
  systems; portability minimizes the number of annoying perplexed email
  messages you will get.


  5.1.  Write either pure ANSI C or a portable scripting language

  For portability and stability, you should write either in ANSI C or a
  scripting language that is guaranteed portable because it has just one
  cross-platform implementation.

  Scripting languages that qualify include Python, Perl, Tcl, and Emacs
  Lisp.  Plain old shell does not qualify; there are too many different
  implementations with subtle idiosyncracies, and the shell environment
  is subject to disruption by user customizations such as shell aliases.

  Java holds promise as a portable language, but the Linux-available
  implementations are still scratchy and poorly integrated with Linux.
  Java is still a bleeding-edge choice, though one likely to become more
  popular as it matures.


  5.2.  Follow good C portability practices

  If you are writing C, do feel free to use the full ANSI features --
  including function prototypes, which will help you spot cross-module
  inconsistancies.  The old-style K&R compilers are history.

  On the other hand, do not assume that GCC-specific features such as
  the `-pipe' option or nested functions are available.  These will come
  around and bite you the second somebody ports to a non-Linux, non-GCC
  system.


  5.3.  Use autoconf/automake/autoheader

  If you're writing C, use autoconf/automake/autoheader to handle
  portability issues, do system-configuration probes, and tailor your
  makefiles.  People building from sources today expect to be able to
  type "configure; make" and get a clean build -- and rightly so.


  5.4.  Sanity-check your code before release

  If you're writing C, test-compile with -Wall and clean up the errors
  at least once before each release.  This catches a surprising number
  of errors.  For real thoroughness, compile with -pedantic as well.

  If you're writing Perl, check your code with perl -c (and maybe -T, if
  applicable).  Use perl -w and 'use strict' religiously.  (See the Perl
  documentation for discussion.)


  5.5.  Sanity-check your documentation and READMEs before release

  Run a spell-checker on them.  If you look like you can't spell and
  don't care, pleople will assume you code is sloppy and careless too.


  6.  Good distribution-making practice

  These guidelines describe how your distribution should look when
  someone downloads, retrieves and unpacks it.


  6.1.  Make sure tarballs always unpack into a single new directory

  The single most annoying mistake newbie developers make is to build
  tarballs that unpack the files and directories in the distribution
  into the current directory, potentially stepping on files already
  located there.  Never do this!

  Instead, make sure your archive files all have a common directory part
  named after the project, so they will unpack into a single top-level
  directory directly beneath the current one.

  Here's a makefile trick that, assuming your distribution directory is
  named `foobar' and SRC contains a list of your distribution files,
  accomplishes this.  It requires GNU tar 1.13





  VERS=1.0
  foobar-$(VERS).tar.gz:
          tar --name-prefix='foobar-$(VERS)/' -czf foobar-$(VERS).tar.gz $(SRC)



  If you have an older tar program, do something like this:


  foobar-$(VERS).tar.gz:
          @ls $(SRC) | sed s:^:foobar-$(VERS)/: >MANIFEST
          @(cd ..; ln -s foobar foobar-$(VERS))
          (cd ..; tar -czvf foobar/foobar-$(VERS).tar.gz `cat foobar/MANIFEST`)
          @(cd ..; rm foobar-$(VERS))




  6.2.  Have a README

  Have a file called README or READ.ME that is a roadmap of your source
  distribution.  By ancient convention, this is the first file intrepid
  explorers will read after unpacking the source.

  Good things to have in the README include:


  o  A brief description of the project.

  o  A pointer to the project website (if it has one)

  o  Notes on the developer's build environment and potential
     portability problems.

  o  A roadmap describing important files and subdirectories.

  o  Either build/installation instructions or a pointer to a file
     containing same (usually INSTALL).

  o  Either a maintainers/credits list or a pointer to a file containing
     same (usually CREDITS).

  o  Either recent project news or a pointer to a file containing same
     (usually NEWS).


  6.3.  Respect and follow standard file naming practices

  Before even looking at the README, your intrepid explorer will have
  scanned the filenames in the top-level directory of your unpacked
  distribution.  Those names can themselves convey information.  By
  adhering to certain standard naming practices, you can give the
  explorer valuable clues about what to look in next.

  Here are some standard top-level file names and what they mean.  Not
  every distribution needs all of these.


     README or READ.ME
        the roadmap file, to be read first


     INSTALL
        configuration, build, and installation instructions


     CREDITS
        list of project contributers


     NEWS
        recent project news


     HISTORY
        project history


     COPYING
        project license terms (GNU convention)


     LICENSE
        project license terms


     MANIFEST
        list of files in the distribution


     FAQ
        plain-text Frequently-Asked-Questions document for the project


     TAGS
        generated tag file for use by Emacs or vi

  Note the overall convention that filenames with all-caps names are
  human-readable metainformation about the package, rather than build
  components.

  Having a FAQ can save you a lot of grief.  When a question about the
  project comes up often, put it in the FAQ; then direct users to read
  the FAQ before sending questions or bug reports.  A well-nurtured FAQ
  can decrease the support burden on the project maintainers by an order
  of magnitude or more.

  Having a HISTORY or NEWS file with timestamps in it for each release
  is valuable.  Among other things, it may help establish prior art if
  you are ever hit with a patent-infringement lawsuit (this hasn't
  happened to anyone yet, but best to be prepared).


  6.4.  Provide RPMs

  The de-facto standard format for installable binary packages is that
  used by the Red Hat Package manager, RPM.  It's featured in the most
  popular Linux distribution, and supported by effectively all other
  Linux distributions (except Debian and Slackware; and Debian can
  install from RPMs).

  Accordingly, it's a good idea for your project site to provide
  installable RPMs as well as source tarballs.

  It's also a good idea for you to include in your source tarball the
  RPM spec file, with a production that makes RPMs from it in your
  Makefile.  The spec file should have the extension `.spec'; that's how
  the rpm -t option finds it in a tarball.

  For extra style points, generate your spec file with a shellscript
  that automatically plugs in the correct version number by analyzing
  the Makefile or a version.h.
  7.  Good communication practice

  Your software won't do the world much good if nobody but you knows it
  exists.  Also, developing a visible presence for the project on the
  Internet will assist you in recruiting users and co-developers.  Here
  are the standard ways to do that.


  7.1.  Announce to c.o.l.a

  Announce new releases to comp.os.linux.announce
  <news:comp.os.linux.announce>.  Besides being widely read itself, this
  group is a major feeder for web-based what's-new sites like Freshmeat
  <http://www.freshmeat.net>.


  7.2.  Announce to a relevant topic newsgroup

  Find USENET topics group directly relevant to your application, and
  announce there as well.  Post only where the function of the code is
  relevant, and exercise restraint.

  If (for example) you are releasing a program written in Perl that
  queries IMAP servers, you should certainly post to comp.mail.imap.
  But you should probably not post to comp.lang.perl unless the program
  is also an instructive example of cutting-edge Perl techniques.

  Your announcement should include the URL of a project website.


  7.3.  Have a website

  If you intend try to build any substantial user or developer community
  around your project, it should have a website.  Standard things to
  have on the website include:

  o  The project charter (why it exists, who the audience is, etc).

  o  Download links for the project sources.

  o  Instructions on how to join the project mailing list(s).

  o  A FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) list.

  o  HTMLized versions of the project documentation

  o  Links to related and/or competing projects.

  Some project sites even have URLs for anonymous access to the master
  source tree.


  7.4.  Host project mailing lists

  It's standard practice to have a private development list through
  which project collaborators can communicate and exchange patches.  You
  may also want to have an announcements list for people who want to be
  kept informed of the project's process


  7.5.  Release to major archives

  For the last several years, the Metalab archive
  <http://www.metalab.unc.edu/pub/Linux/> has been the most important
  interchange location for Linux software.

  Other important locations include:


  o  the Python Software Activity <http://www.python.org> site (for
     software written in Python).

  o  the CPAN <http://language.perl.com/CPAN>, the Comprehensive Perl
     Archive Network, (for software written in Perl).


  8.  Good project-management practice

  Managing a project well when all the participants are volunteers
  presents some unique challenges.  This is too large a topic to cover
  in a HOWTO.  Fortunately, there are some useful white papers available
  that will help you understand the major issues.

  For discussion of basic development organization and the release-
  early-release-often `bazaar mode', see The Cathedral and the Bazaar
  <http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/>.

  For discussion of motivational psychology, community customs, and
  conflict resolution, see Homesteading the Noosphere
  <http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/homesteading/>.

  For discussion of economics and appropriate business models, see The
  Magic Cauldron <http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/magic-cauldron/>.

  These papers are not the last word on open-source development.  But
  they were the first serious analyses to be written, and have yet to be
  superseded.



































