Bug#402482: RC?
On Wed, Dec 20, 2006 at 02:41:29PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 December 2006 08:35, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > I have yet to see the dataloss. Anyways, bugs being important doesn't
> > mean they are not allowed to be fixed (and I would let such an fix
> > still to Etch currently), but I don't think we should wait on the fix.
> > So I'm downgrading to important.
> The dataloss is there, though not in the conventional sense: the file
> itself is correct, but using busybox zcat or gunzip only part of it is
> extracted so from a user PoV data is "lost".
No, that's not the standard for data loss, and this does not qualify as a
grave bug on those grounds. No data is *lost* just because busybox gunzip
can't get to it.
Nor is the package "unusable or mostly so"; clearly the package is usable,
it's been stated in the bug log that this bug no longer impacts d-i, which
is using it.
You could argue that the package is "unfit for release" (=> sev: serious),
but then I don't see how that's consistent with asking for an etch-ignore
tag. If it's ignorable for etch, I don't see why it wouldn't also be
ignorable for lenny if it didn't get fixed in time.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Reply to: