On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 11:26:46 -0600
steve(a)silug.org (Steven Pritchard) wrote:
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 07:39:51PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> There isn't any guideline either way. I usually prefer to use
> patches myself, but this spec is based on one from Dag, and he used
> the perl substitutions in there, so I left it in order to keep
> close to his spec.
So EPEL clamav is going to look like Dag's, not like the "regular"
Fedora clamav?
Thats my hope.
I'm not really a fan of the Fedora clamav packages, but I do have
to
live with them (for amavisd-new). How much pain is this fork going to
cause me?
I don't know, but I would love to hear. Do you want me to investigate?
Or can you take a look at the clamav packages and see?
I suspect this package would work with amavisd-new much easier than the
fedora one.
Honestly, I think I'd rather volunteer to maintain Enrico's
clamav
spec in EPEL than even think about maintaining forked amavisd-new
specs.
Can we see how much difference there would be first?
I would also be willing to co-maintain the epel amavisd-new if it would
help.
Steve
kevin