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]
