27840 – xdvik-22.40y1.ebuild should be a valid ebuild name

Bug 27840 - xdvik-22.40y1.ebuild should be a valid ebuild name

Summary: xdvik-22.40y1.ebuild should be a valid ebuild name

Status:	RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 17172

Alias:	None

Product:	Portage Development
Classification:	Unclassified
Component:	Unclassified (show other bugs)
Hardware:	All All

Importance:	High normal (vote)
Assignee:	Portage team

URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Depends on:
Blocks:

Reported:	2003-09-02 23:51 UTC by Mamoru KOMACHI (RETIRED)
Modified:	2011-10-30 22:17 UTC (History)
CC List:	1 user (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required:	---

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Description Mamoru KOMACHI (RETIRED) gentoo-dev

2003-09-02 23:51:58 UTC

I was trying to make a package of xdvik-22.40y1 but Portage didn't
allow me to do it.  I'm using portage-2.0.49-r3.

Here is the log about it:

rico% ebuild xdvik-22.40y_p1.ebuild digest
!!! Name error in 22.40y_p1: characters before _ must be numeric
!!! Error: PF is null; exiting.
rico% ebuild xdvik-22.40y1.ebuild digest
!!! Name error in 22.40y1
!!! Error: PF is null; exiting.
rico% ebuild xdvik-22.40y.1.ebuild digest
!!! Name error in 22.40y.1: "40y" is not a valid version component.
!!! Error: PF is null; exiting.

From Gentoo Linux Development Policy xdvik-22.40y_p1.ebuild is
expected to be a valid ebuild name while xdvik-22.40y1.ebuild and
xdvik-22.40y.1.ebuild are not (I think it is better to output an error
message in the seconde case, xdvk-22.40y1.ebuild, as well as in the
third case).  

Thanks in advance.

Comment 1 Marius Mauch (RETIRED) gentoo-dev

2003-09-21 10:50:05 UTC


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 17172 ***