Michael, Please keep the Cc: list intact when replying.
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 11:01:00PM +0200, Michael Fritscher wrote: > > 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? > It killed already files for me and others. > It is mentioned in the forum, too: > http://forum.ntfs-3g.org/viewtopic.php?t=170&highlight= > Another problem is that unmounting was asyncron in these early versions, > which can cause data loss, too. > So I strongly advise to drop this package, if you don't want to update it. That's certainly persuasive to me. Adam, is there any hope of a targetted fix for these issues described, or are users really just safer if we drop the package from etch? -- 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]
