gustavo panizzo <g...@zumbi.com.ar> writes: > If the bug is not amavisd-new but perl/DBI, shouldn't this bug be > reassigned and its severity lowered?
Unfortunately this bug may not be caused by any errors in amavisd-new, however it still affects user's of amavisd-new. So I think it still applies here. > I ask because I won't maintain amavisd-new on stretch, but as a user of > it I'd like to have it Agreed. For the record, the justification given for this being grave is "causes non-serious data loss". By "data loss" I assume they mean "mis-classifies large numbers of emails as spam on some systems". However I don't consider this to be data loss. By data loss I think policy means "deletes/currupts random files". Hence I don't think this should be an RC bug. It is also worth mentioning that many people use amavisd-new without mysql support (which is completely optional) and are not affected by this bug. > I volunteer to fill the unblock request if the maintainer agrees. It is > too late but i'd try anyway, the debdiff between 2.10.1-2~deb8u1 and > 2.10.1-4 shouldn't be big I think a best recommendation would be to ask the release team for recommendations on how to proceed. I suspect the best way to contact them might be via an unblock request. I don't expect amavisd-new will be allowed back into testing, now that it has been removed. "After 5th January 2017, removed packages will not be permitted to re-enter testing." However maybe they might allow amavisd-new to reenter via the next point release. I would like to see the Perl bug fixed. There hasn't been any patches yet, let alone feedback from Perl upstream. So it is not possible to be certain if the bug is in Perl or libdbd-mysql-perl, or how intrusive the fix might be. One thing certain however, I don't believe this bug can be fixed (or worked around even) by changing amavisd-new. -- Brian May <b...@debian.org>
