severity 373704 important thanks On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 02:04:11AM +0100, Samuel Thibault wrote: > Steve Langasek, le Sat 13 Jan 2007 13:10:25 -0800, a écrit : > > "Potentially leading to random breakage" doesn't really justify a critical > > severity when there are a limited number of packages making use of busybox > > (and busybox sort in particular). Does this bug actually break d-i, and if > > so how?
> It used to break the execution order of some scripts. Currently it > doesn't, but it could very well break again. Well, if it currently doesn't then that seems to not be a reason to treat it as RC. On Sun, Jan 14, 2007 at 03:39:09AM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: > On Saturday 13 January 2007 22:10, Steve Langasek wrote: > > "Potentially leading to random breakage" doesn't really justify a > > critical severity when there are a limited number of packages making > > use of busybox (and busybox sort in particular). Does this bug > > actually break d-i, and if so how? > Let me start with a little quote: > <ifvoid> fjp: why is it rc? > <fjp> ifvoid: Basically because it can cause unexpected breakage in > anything that uses busybox sort. > <fjp> ifvoid: My feeling is that the behavior now is even worse than the > original bug. > <fjp> ifvoid: Not sure if RMs would agree though. > <aj> unexpected breakage in busybox sort sounds horrible > * Maulkin nods True, unexpected breakage is horrible, but currently the only material breakage seems to not only be expected, but worked around. It may make busybox sort unsuitable as a POSIX sort replacement, but that's simply not anything that needs to be release-critical. > "Critical" is possibly too high if you just consider Debian packages. > However, if you also consider use of busybox in embedded devices where > scripts written for GNU sort are being run (which apparently is a big > market for Debian), it could still be justified. > It can at least potentially break unrelated software. - software that invokes busybox isn't unrelated - folks that are changing the Debian base system by replacing bash and/or coreutils with busybox are bound to do their own regression testing when deploying such changes; we shouldn't expect that every such bug that may affect people who are *modifying* Debian be treated as release-critical for Debian itself. > I think "not suitable for release" is quite justified in this case, > especially as the sort function in Sarge works better. The original fix > for this bug has caused sorting with a delimiter (-t option) to work > worse than it did. I disagree about it being unsuitable for release, but feel free to NMU for this, a patch seems to be available now and I have no problem letting such a fix through into etch. Thanks, -- 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/
