On Thursday 21 December 2006 02:46, Steve Langasek wrote: > 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.
It has severity serious, so we agree about that. The reason it is ignorable for Etch is IMO that the problem has already been in busybox for a long time and that is was only discovered very shortly before the release. These facts make it unrealistic to delay the release for the issue. However, that does not mean it should also be ignored for a release that is 1.5 years away. Keeping it at serious with tag etch-ignore basically means "please fix asap, if possible even in time for Etch". The issue is serious as people may not always know exactly what to expect when extracting data from a zipped file and thus may not know they are missing anything.
pgppfHTxUG5ml.pgp
Description: PGP signature
