An ebuild must not depend upon any package that is of a lower keyword level than itself. For example, if foo-1.2 depends upon bar-1.2, and bar-1.2 is ~x86, then foo-1.2 must not be marked stable on x86 unless bar-1.2 is also stabilised.

You may assume that if a user accepts ~arch for a given arch then they also accept arch.

For optional dependencies, all possible dependencies must satisfy the above. Note that certain USE flags can be forcibly disabled on a per-profile basis talk to the arch teams if you require this. For either-or dependencies, at least one of the options must be of equal or better visibility than the package in question.

The package.mask file can be used to 'hard mask' individual or groups of ebuilds. This should be used for testing ebuilds or beta releases of software, and may also be used if a package has serious compatibility problems. Packages which are not hard masked must not have a dependency upon hard masked packages.

The only time it is acceptable for a user to see the Possibly a DEPEND problem error message is if they have manually changed visibility levels for a package (for example, through /etc/portage/) and have missed a dependency. You should never commit a change which could cause this error to appear on a user system.

Do not assume that your package works on all architectures. Do not assume that user submitted ebuilds will have correct KEYWORDS chances are they just copied from somewhere else. Do not assume that upstream's 'supported architectures' list is correct. Do not assume that because your code is written in Perl / Python / Java / whatever that it will run on other archs (there is at least one case of a vim script which only worked on x86).

Note that most (non-x86) archs expect you to be on the arch team and bugzilla alias if you are committing packages with keywords for that arch, and may have additional requirements of which you should be aware (on mips, for example, there are multiple ABIs and byte orders to consider a package working on your o32 box may not work on o64 or n32). Contact the individual arch teams for details.

It's important to note that alternative arches (like alpha, ia64, s390, sh, sparc, hppa, ppc*) are mainly undermanned arches, some of them are slow, they have more basic problems and have a small userbase. Just file bugs for these architectures when a package is going to be a dependency of a package already keyworded.

Do not commit straight to arch.

When upgrading, drop all existing keywords from arch to ~arch, and leave any existing ~arch keywords intact. This must be done even if you think you're just making a trivial fix there have been several examples of the stable tree getting broken this way.

Sometimes you may need to remove a keyword because of new unresolved dependencies. If you do this, you must file a bug notifying the relevant arch teams.

This also applies to revision bumps, not just to upstream version changes.

Moving a package from ~arch to arch is done only by the relevant arch teams. If you have access to non-x86 hardware but are not on the arch teams, you may wish to make individual arrangements the arch teams are happy for help, so long as they know what is going on. Please note that x86 is now no longer an exception and stabilisation must be done through the x86 arch team unless you have individual arrangements see GLEP 40 for further details.

For a package to move to stable, the following guidelines must be met:

• The package has spent a reasonable amount of time in ~arch first. Thirty days is the usual figure, although this is clearly only a guideline. For critical packages, a much longer duration is expected. For small packages which have only minor changes between versions, a shorter period is sometimes appropriate.
• The package must not have any non-arch dependencies.
• The package must not have any severe outstanding bugs or issues.
• The package must be widely tested.
• If the package is a library, it should be known not to break any package which depends upon it.

For security fixes, the "reasonable amount of time" guideline may be relaxed. See the Vulnerability Treatment Policy

When removing ebuild, ensure that you do not remove the most recent version at any given keyword level on any profile. The aim here is:

• Never to force a downgrade. (Exception: occasionally you really do want to force a downgrade, for example if the newly committed foo-1.3 turns out to be badly broken and that making everyone downgrade to foo-1.2 is the better option. This is rare.)
• Do not break any existing dependencies.

If you would like a particular package version moved to stable on certain archs so that you can tidy up, file a bug.