Bug#402482: RC?
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. pgpbb4147WsSJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#402482: RC?
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. Then why not leave it at RC and tag it etchignore. IMO that would better fit this issue. Cheers, FJP pgpRRp1a2IoRa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#402482: RC?
* Frans Pop ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061220 14:42]: 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. Then why not leave it at RC and tag it etchignore. IMO that would better fit this issue. If you want, you can do it (IOW, this is a direct approval of using etch-ignore by you in this case). Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#402482: RC?
severity 402482 important thanks * Steve McIntyre ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061211 17:02]: Joey wrote: I don't belive that this bug is actually RC: There's a workaround for the problem in debian-cd, and the bug's not causing any other problems that I know of. I'm happy for this to be tagged etch-ignore, but it can potentially lead to data loss so I think it should stay as serious in the long run 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. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#402482: RC?
I don't belive that this bug is actually RC: There's a workaround for the problem in debian-cd, and the bug's not causing any other problems that I know of. -- see shy jo, fairly heavy user of gzip file.gz signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#402482: RC?
Joey wrote: I don't belive that this bug is actually RC: There's a workaround for the problem in debian-cd, and the bug's not causing any other problems that I know of. I'm happy for this to be tagged etch-ignore, but it can potentially lead to data loss so I think it should stay as serious in the long run -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED] ...In the UNIX world, people tend to interpret `non-technical user' as meaning someone who's only ever written one device driver. -- Daniel Pead signature.asc Description: Digital signature
