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
Processing commands for [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
severity 402482 serious
Bug#402482: busybox gunzip / zcat fail to decompress validly gzipped files
Severity set to `serious' from `important'
tags 402482 + etch-ignore
Bug#402482: busybox gunzip / zcat fail to decompress validly gzipped files
There
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
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
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
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
6 matches
Mail list logo
