On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 10:47:35AM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 08:10:49PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > On Tue, May 03, 2005 at 10:35:56PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote: > > > Now that sarge is frozen (and as I have just checked, a sarge fork > > > of e2fsprogs made), what do you think of looking at this old bug for > > > unstable? > > > > > > Unless I missed something, the solution proposed by Colin's last mails was > > > acceptable but impossible to apply before sarge.
Well, er, some testing of it *before* upload would be kind of nice, rather than applying stuff that came off the top of my head. :-) > > > Can we do this now? Are > > > there any caveats that need to be solved first? > > > > Why do you care so much? This bug is priority wishlist for a reason, > > I don't think anyone considers it terribly important. Splitting out > > fsck will bloat the FTP archives by an additional package, and the > > only advantage is that it will save a small amount of disk space > > (0.001% of the space on a 100 gig filesystem, which is pretty moderate > > in these days of 250 gig disks). > > Because it's more than 3 years old. I'm concerned that if we miss the time > frame untill the next freeze of base system, it'll never be fixed. I don't even consider it especially important (even for etch), certainly nowadays, and I reported it ... Bugs don't necessarily increase in importance with age. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
