I found this issue by using eix. Easily explained by looking at the output: % update-eix Reading Portage settings .. Building database (/home/jolexa/portage/linux-64/var/cache/eix) .. [0] /home/jolexa/portage/linux-64/usr/portage/ (cache: none) Reading 000%Garbage at end of version string: .01 Garbage at end of version string: .01 002%Garbage at end of version string: .2 013%Garbage at end of version string: .1 014%Garbage at end of version string: .1 022%Garbage at end of version string: .2 Garbage at end of version string: .01 022%Garbage at end of version string: .1 031%Garbage at end of version string: .1 079%Garbage at end of version string: .1 083%Garbage at end of version string: .2 Garbage at end of version string: .1 085%Garbage at end of version string: .2 Garbage at end of version string: .1 Garbage at end of version string: .1 094%Garbage at end of version string: .1 100% Applying masks .. Database contains 776 packages in 149 categories. One package for example is sys-libs/zlib. In the main tree it is version zlib-1.2.3-r1 which can be verified by looking at the header of the ebuild. However in the prefix-overlay it is version 1.2.3-r01.1. Reproducible: Always eix will still work as expected, it just complains..Not sure if this is a serious issue to deal with or something that needs to be fixed upstream.
NOT a bugzilla problem.
This has nothing to do with Gentoo Bugzilla product; please read the descriptions. Plus, this kind of versioning is illegal ATM (see Bug 152990).
eh, sorry about assigning it wrong. If this is invalid versioning then something needs to be worked out somewhere because that is how prefix works (see: Ebuild inter-revisions on: http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/prefix/techdocs.xml#doc_chap2) Two conflicting policies within Gentoo projects.
(In reply to comment #3) > (see: Ebuild inter-revisions on: > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/prefix/techdocs.xml#doc_chap2) Two > conflicting policies within Gentoo projects. The above is not any policy. This kind of versioning is illegal in gentoo-x86 tree; you'll need to sort out this with alt@ folks.
(In reply to comment #4) > This kind of versioning is illegal in gentoo-x86 > tree; you'll need to sort out this with alt@ folks. Ah, from the above referenced bug I assumed it was illegal for all the trees (ie. a "Gentoo policy") Sorry if I am confusing the terms here but as long as this bug finds it way to the alt team, I am happy. (That was my original intent, obviously) Thanks for your help Jakub.
(In reply to comment #5) > Ah, from the above referenced bug I assumed it was illegal for all the trees > (ie. a "Gentoo policy") Sorry if I am confusing the terms here but as long as > this bug finds it way to the alt team, I am happy. (That was my original > intent, obviously) Thanks for your help Jakub. Well, prefix folks have their own portage - with their own set of rules. ;)
interrevisions are a HACK/workaround necessary in a tree shadowing the main gentoo-x86 tree, like the prefix tree. I for sure am not going to (attempt to) fix this. If you dive into it yourself, patches are welcome. I don't expect (and wouldn't like) upstream to take those, but we can apply them in prefix no problem.
