version 1.25 - Sergey Poznyakoff, 2010-11-07 * Fix extraction of empty directories with the -C option in effect. * Fix extraction of device nodes. * Make sure name matching occurs before eventual name transformation. Tar 1.24 changed the ordering of name matching and name transformation so that the former saw already transformed file names. This made it impossible to match file names in certain cases. It is fixed now. * Fix the behavior of tar -x --overwrite on hosts lacking O_NOFOLLOW. * Improve the testsuite. * Alternative decompression programs. If extraction from a compressed archive fails because the corresponding compression program is not installed and the following two conditions are met, tar retries extraction using an alternative decompressor: 1. Another compression program supported by tar is able to handle this compression format. 2. The compression program was not explicitly requested in the command line by the use of such options as -z, -j, etc. For example, if `compress' is not available, tar will try `gzip'.
Created attachment 253703 [details, diff] tar-1.25.ebuild.patch I mailed this diff to vapier earlier today, but since there's a bug now... attaching it here.
oh well, in cvs :)
But why does portage want to downgrade this one to 1.23-r4? # emerge -uDalN system These are the packages that would be merged, in order: Calculating dependencies... done! [ebuild UD] app-arch/tar-1.23-r4 [1.25] Would you like to merge these packages? [Yes/No] n
(In reply to comment #3) > But why does portage want to downgrade this one to 1.23-r4? Why not read the mask message? # emerge -pv =tar-1.25
(In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > But why does portage want to downgrade this one to 1.23-r4? > > Why not read the mask message? > > # emerge -pv =tar-1.25 > Ok, I was looking at Changelog for the package and there's nothing, I think it's logical to expect finding it in the Changelog if it's been masked, right? I wasn't aware of the command you gave above so great now I learned something new, thanks ;-)
Just to clarify, the ??? arise from the fact that I already had installed it before getting masked and now portage wants to downgrade it without giving any reason (in the Changelog) and I think that's "logically" wrong.
