1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
|
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<guide self="keywording/">
<chapter>
<title>Keywording and Stabilization</title>
<body>
<note>
<e>Terminology</e>: The term 'package' refers to an entire directory, for example
<c>app-editors/vim</c> <d /> it does <e>not</e> refer to a specific version. The terms
'ebuild' or 'package version' are used when this meaning is intended. This
distinction is important.
</note>
<p>
Most ebuilds specify a <c>KEYWORDS</c> variable. This variable is used to
indicate the suitability and stability of both the package and the ebuild on
each given arch (<c>sparc</c>, <c>ppc</c>, <c>x64-macos</c>, ...).
</p>
<note>
The term 'arch' is used in this sense for historical reasons. As a result
of <uri link="https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0022.html">GLEP 22</uri>
and the various non-Linux ports, this is no longer a particularly
accurate term.
</note>
<p>
A sample <c>KEYWORDS</c> entry might look like:
</p>
<codesample lang="ebuild">
KEYWORDS="-ia64 ~mips ~ppc sparc x86 ~ppc-macos"
</codesample>
<p>
The different levels of keyword are:
</p>
<dl>
<dt>
<c>arch</c> (<c>x86</c>, <c>ppc-macos</c>)
</dt>
<dd>
Both the package version <e>and</e> the ebuild are widely tested, known to work
and not have any serious issues on the indicated platform.
</dd>
<dt>
<c>~arch</c> (<c>~x86</c>, <c>~ppc-macos</c>)
</dt>
<dd>
The package version and the ebuild are believed to work and do not have any
known serious bugs, but more testing is required before the package version
is considered suitable for <c>arch</c>.
</dd>
<dt>
No keyword
</dt>
<dd>
If a package has no keyword for a given arch, it means it is not known
whether the package will work, or that insufficient testing has occurred for
<c>~arch</c>.
</dd>
<dt>
<c>-arch</c> (<c>-x86</c>, <c>-ppc-macos</c>)
</dt>
<dd>
The package version will not work on the arch. This could be caused by badly
written code (for example, non-64-bit or endian clean code), relying upon
particular hardware (for example, a BIOS querying tool would not work on
non-BIOS architectures) or binary only packages.
</dd>
</dl>
<p>
The <c>-*</c> keyword is special. It is used to indicate package versions which are
not worth trying to test on unlisted archs. For example, a binary-only package
which is only supported upstream on <c>ppc</c> and <c>x86</c> might use:
</p>
<codesample lang="ebuild">
KEYWORDS="-* ppc x86"
</codesample>
<p>
This is different in implication from <c>"ppc x86"</c> <d /> the former implies that
it will not work on other archs, whereas the latter implies that it has not been
tested.
</p>
<p>
Do <b>not</b> use the <c>*</c> or <c>~*</c> special keywords in ebuilds.
</p>
<note>
Usually, "live" ebuilds
(see <uri link="::ebuild-writing/functions/src_unpack/vcs-sources/"/>)
do not specify a <c>KEYWORDS</c> variable, or assign the empty string to it.
</note>
</body>
<section>
<title>Equal Visibility Requirement</title>
<body>
<p>
An ebuild <b>must not</b> depend upon any package that is of a lower keyword level
than itself. For example, if <c>foo-1.2</c> depends upon <c>bar-1.2</c>, and
<c>bar-1.2</c> is <c>~x86</c>, then <c>foo-1.2</c> must <b>not</b> be marked stable on
<c>x86</c> unless <c>bar-1.2</c> is also stabilised.
</p>
<p>
You may assume that if a user accepts <c>~arch</c> for a given arch then they also
accept <c>arch</c>.
</p>
<p>
For optional dependencies, all <e>possible</e> dependencies must satisfy the above.
Note that certain <c>USE</c> flags can be forcibly disabled on a per-profile basis
<d /> talk to the arch teams if you require this. For either-or dependencies, <e>at
least one</e> of the options must be of equal or better visibility than the
package in question.
</p>
</body>
</section>
<section>
<title>Hard Masks</title>
<body>
<p>
The <c>package.mask</c> 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 <b>not</b> have a dependency upon hard masked
packages.
</p>
<p>
The only time it is acceptable for a user to see the <c>Possibly a DEPEND
problem</c> error message is if they have manually changed visibility levels for a
package (for example, through <c>/etc/portage/</c>) and have missed a dependency.
<b>You should never commit a change which could cause this error to appear on a
user system</b>.
</p>
</body>
</section>
<section>
<title>Keywording New Packages</title>
<body>
<important>
New packages should be marked as <c>~arch</c> only upon
architectures for which the committing developer has tested.
</important>
<p>
Do <b>not</b> assume that your package works on all architectures. Do <b>not</b>
assume that user submitted ebuilds will have correct <c>KEYWORDS</c> <d /> chances are
they just copied from somewhere else. Do <b>not</b> assume that upstream's
'supported architectures' list is correct. Do <b>not</b> 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 <c>vim</c> script which only worked on
<c>x86</c>).
</p>
<p>
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 <c>mips</c>, for example,
there are multiple ABIs and byte orders to consider <d /> a package working on your
<c>o32</c> box may not work on <c>o64</c> or <c>n32</c>). Contact the individual arch
teams for details.
</p>
<p>
It's important to note that alternative arches (like alpha, ia64, s390, 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.
</p>
<p>
Do <b>not</b> commit straight to <c>arch</c>.
</p>
</body>
</section>
<section>
<title>Keywording on Upgrades</title>
<body>
<p>
When upgrading, drop all existing keywords from <c>arch</c> to <c>~arch</c>, and leave
any existing <c>~arch</c> keywords intact. This must be done even if you <e>think</e>
you're just making a trivial fix <d /> there have been several examples of the
stable tree getting broken this way.
</p>
<p>
This also applies to revision bumps, not just to upstream version changes.
</p>
<p>
If a new version introduces new dependencies which are not available on some
architectures, then you should file a bug or ask on IRC before you upgrade the
ebuild. If you really need to get the ebuild added in a hurry, for example,
for a security fix, then you should drop any <c>KEYWORDS</c> which are causing
problems and CC the relevant architectures on the bug <d/> you <b>must</b> file
a new bug to the architecture in question regarding this if no bug is already
available.
</p>
<p>
If there are no new dependencies, do not remove keywords if your commit fails
with repoman <d/> please try a full <c>git pull</c> and if you still have
problems, then commit with <c>repoman -I</c> and file a bug to the broken
architecture, noting it in your git commit message.
</p>
<important>
When committing, make sure that you reference any bugs in the commit message.
See <uri link="::ebuild-maintenance/git/#Git Commit Message Format"/> for how
to do this.
</important>
</body>
</section>
<section>
<title>Moving from <c>~arch</c> to <c>arch</c></title>
<body>
<p>
Stabilization, i.e., moving an ebuild from <c>~arch</c> to <c>arch</c>, is done
by the relevant architecture teams. If you have access to exotic hardware but
are not on the arch teams, you may wish to make individual arrangements <d/>
the arch teams are happy for help, so long as they know what is going on.
</p>
<p>
In order to request stabilization of an ebuild, file a bug to the package's
maintainer (which may be yourself) in the Stabilization component, and list
all secondary maintainers in the bug's CC. When the maintainers consider the
ebuild to be ready for stabilization, they will add the relevant architecture
teams to the CC list. They can do it manually, or they can fill the package
list field, add the <c>CC-ARCHES</c> keyword, and let
<uri link="https://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/doc/nattka/">NATTkA</uri>
automatically add arch teams to CC.
That way teams can remove themselves from the list when they are done, giving
a clear indication of which teams still have to stabilize a package.
</p>
<p>
For an ebuild to move to stable, the following guidelines must be met
(see <uri link="https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0040.html">GLEP 40</uri>
for further details):
</p>
<ul>
<li>
The ebuild has spent a reasonable amount of time in <c>~arch</c> 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 that have only minor changes between versions, a shorter period is
sometimes appropriate.
</li>
<li>
The ebuild must not have any non-<c>arch</c> dependencies.
</li>
<li>
The package version (and the ebuild) must not have any severe outstanding
bugs or issues.
</li>
<li>
The package version must be widely tested.
</li>
<li>
If the package is a library, it should be known not to break any package which
depends upon it.
</li>
</ul>
<p>
For security fixes, the "reasonable amount of time" guideline may be relaxed.
See the <uri link="https://www.gentoo.org/support/security/vulnerability-treatment-policy.html">
Vulnerability Treatment Policy</uri>
</p>
</body>
<subsection>
<title>Stabilization rules</title>
<body>
<p>
AMD64, X86: If you are the maintainer of a package and own the respective amd64
or x86 hardware, you can do your own testing (stabilization and keywording) of
your packages; as long as it is not a core system set dependency. Note that
it is acceptable to test x86 using a
<uri link="https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:AMD64/32-bit_Chroot_Guide">
specialized environment on amd64</uri>.
</p>
<p>
SPARC: You must have prior permission from the arch lead. Usually we expect
you to be on the sparc alias for QA reasons, although other arrangements
can be made if you will only be working with a small group of packages.
</p>
<p>
ALPHA: Maintainers may keyword their own packages but are reminded to inform
the Alpha team if they can help out with testing and keywording packages so
the team can keep an eye out for possible keywording mistakes.
</p>
<p>
Exotic architectures (like hppa, ia64, ppc*, sparc) are short on manpower,
so it's best if you avoid opening bugs for stabilization of new packages
for them, unless it is absolutely necessary (e.g., a reverse dependency
for your package).
</p>
<p>
Some architectures (like mips, riscv) do not maintain a stable keyword.
So packages are not to be marked stable for one of these architectures.
</p>
</body>
</subsection>
<subsection>
<title>Simultaneous stabilization on all architectures</title>
<body>
<p>
If you maintain an architecture-independent package (data files, icons, pure
Python, ...) then you may request that your package be stabilized on all arches
at once. To do this <d/> when you are filing the stabilization bug <d/> please
add the keyword <c>ALLARCHES</c> in addition to <c>STABLEREQ</c> and CC the
arches that you would like to stabilize.
</p>
<p>
If your package is architecture-independent, you should add the
<c><stabilize-allarches/></c> tag to metadata.xml. This allows consistency
in future stabilizations and saves arch teams considerable work.
</p>
<p>
The arch teams, when encountering the <c>ALLARCHES</c> keyword, should perform
their usual set of tests on a single convenient architecture. Then, if
everything works, stabilize not only the arch that was used during testing,
but also all of the other arches in CC on the bug. Afterwards, the CC field can
be cleared and the bug closed if appropriate.
</p>
</body>
</subsection>
</section>
<section>
<title>Removing Package Versions</title>
<body>
<p>
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:
</p>
<ul>
<li>
Never to force a downgrade. (Exception: occasionally you really do want to
force a downgrade, for example if the newly committed <c>foo-1.3</c> turns out
to be badly broken and that making everyone downgrade to <c>foo-1.2</c> is the
better option. This is rare.)
</li>
<li>
Do not break any existing dependencies.
</li>
</ul>
<p>
If you would like a particular package version moved to stable on certain archs
so that you can tidy up, file a bug.
</p>
</body>
</section>
</chapter>
</guide>
|
GitWeb