Bug 164441 - app-admin/testdisk-6.5 stable request
|
Bug#:
164441
|
Product: Gentoo Linux
|
Version: unspecified
|
Platform: All
|
|
OS/Version: All
|
Status: RESOLVED
|
Severity: enhancement
|
Priority: P2
|
|
Resolution: FIXED
|
Assigned To: forensics@gentoo.org
|
Reported By: rockoo@gmail.com
|
|
Component: Ebuilds
|
|
|
URL:
|
|
Summary: app-admin/testdisk-6.5 stable request
|
|
Keywords:
|
|
Status Whiteboard:
|
|
Opened: 2007-01-29 19:20 0000
|
app-admin/testdisk-6.5 stable request
- works fine on x86 for some time now
as per bug 152380 the previous version had an endless loop.
testplan:
1. testdisk /debug
and have a look around /dev/hda /dev/sda
2. photorec /dev/sda
should pull all photos (and a few other filetypes) out of the raw disk /dev/sda
photorec can also work with disk images (http://sourceforge.net/projects/dftt/
for diskcarving samples)
test2:
> 2. photorec /dev/sda
> should pull all photos (and a few other filetypes) out of the raw disk /dev/sda
photorec works fine overhere - recovered 300MB from my usb/vfat
It stable on amd64 now (I have just emerge --sync and saw it).
However, it seems NOT to be present in any repository... Should I issue a new
bug?
(In reply to comment #5)
> It stable on amd64 now (I have just emerge --sync and saw it).
Really?
app-admin/testdisk $ fgrep KEY *
testdisk-6.5.ebuild:KEYWORDS="~amd64 ppc x86"
testdisk-6.6.ebuild:KEYWORDS="~amd64 ~ppc ~x86"
> However, it seems NOT to be present in any repository...
http://packages.gentoo.org/search/?sstring=testdisk
Really?
> Should I issue a new
> bug?
No, but I am confused.
> Really?
> app-admin/testdisk $ fgrep KEY *
> testdisk-6.5.ebuild:KEYWORDS="~amd64 ppc x86"
> testdisk-6.6.ebuild:KEYWORDS="~amd64 ~ppc ~x86"
Yep, you are right (I had unmasked it in /etc/portage/package.keywords) :$
> > However, it seems NOT to be present in any repository...
>
> http://packages.gentoo.org/search/?sstring=testdisk
> Really?
Yep. As of yesterday no mirror had the latest testdisk (6.6). Right now, I
coudl download one, but the checksum does not match.
> No, but I am confused.
Hope it's clear now.