On Dec 6, 2007 10:26 AM, Steven Pritchard <steve(a)silug.org> 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?
Yes.. this was discussed several times in the past. Part of it was
that a lot of enterprise people use dag's as it was there first and it
works with what they had.. second it was a peace offering in some
ways to try and say 'look' we are looking to work with others by using
what is 'best' for enterprise environments. Third.. this started at a
time when enrico was not going to push past 0.87 for some technical
reasons and DAG had 0.91 or so that people were needing for audits and
such.
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?
Honestly, I think I'd rather volunteer to maintain Enrico's clamav spec
in EPEL than even think about maintaining forked amavisd-new specs.
I would prefer to see how much work it was. I
--
Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"