On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 10:56:31PM +0200, Adam Cécile (Le_Vert) wrote: > Steve Langasek a écrit : > > On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 10:41:39PM +0200, Adam Cécile (Le_Vert) wrote:
> >> Contact debian-release if you have some serious reason to request > >> ntfs-3g 1.0.0. inclusion into etch. > > From my POV, the question is not whether ntfs-3g 1.0.0 should be included in > > etch (it won't be), but whether the risk of this data loss is significant > > enough that we should consider dropping ntfs-3g from etch altogether for the > > sake of our users' data. Since ntfs-3g didn't ship with any previous > > release, and has no reverse-dependencies in etch, it doesn't seem > > unreasonable to drop it from the release, and that seems to be in keeping > > with our policy of treating data loss bugs with the highest severity? > Hi vorlon, > I'm using ntfs-3g for ages, my corporate does too. > Well, in fact, thousand of people uses ntfs-3g every days and nobody > ever reported data corruption. So the submitter's report was made up? Just because no one has reported data loss to *you* doesn't mean that we should ignore upstream reports of data loss with this version, does it? > As the software was still in experimental state when I packaged it, I > added a debconf screen to warns users, I don't consider debconf advisories an acceptable workaround for a release-critical bug, if that's what this is. > however I thinks it's stupid to drop such a famous and usefull package > (consider nobody reported a real bug on ntfs-3g since it's into the > archive...). Heh, I don't know about it being "famous", but the first time a user running it in stable finds that it's destroyed his data, it definitely will be famous... -- 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/
