On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 08:41:38PM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote:
> [ Sven, thanks for the investigation on e2fsck-static! ]
>
> Please see the bug log for further details and logs, it's a split of a
> conglomerate bug, but the gist of it (should) be quoted below.
>
> I've still set the severity to serious, even if the issue is caused by
> very old packages, because as long as this is not handled during an
> upgrade of a release cycle, then the problem is bound to possibly be
> carried over from release to release.
Is this really considered a serious bug? If so, I'd love to use this
as an excuse to upgrade e2fsprogs to 1.42.7 since it fixes some pretty
catastrophic data corruption bugs for users who try to resize file
systems larger than 16TB, but when I looked at the most recent
requirement that wheezy was frozen for all but serious and above error
messages, and looking at the definition of "serious", "grave", and
"critical", it wasn't obvious that there were sufficient number of
users who use > 16TB file systems that I could in all honesty justify
trying to ask the release team for a freeze exception for e2fsprogs.
I'd be eager and delighted to fix this bug as a part of pushing out
e2fsprogs 1.42.7, but I'd like to get a ruling from the release team
that this is something they would support. Whether the justification
is this particular symlink bug, or resize2fs potentially causing data
loss for > 16TB file systems, either is fine with me. :-)
Thanks,
- Ted
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
