(keeping everything CC'ed...dunno if that's what's expected) Quoting Neil McGovern (firstname.lastname@example.org): > email@example.com > Bcc: > Subject: ClamAV supportability in stable releases > Reply-To: > > Hi, > > The release team have been asked to remove ClamAV from testing (and > hence the next stable release. See bug #587058. > > The issue seems to be that it's not supportable in stable due to the > upstream maintainers deciding to upgrade their data files in a way that > isn't binary compatable with previous versions. > > A couple of options have been mentioned for what to do with this, > including volatile. I'm opening this mail thread for discussion, and if > no one comments then I'll go ahead and action the bug report in two > weeks. For avoidance of doubt, this will also affect reverse > depends, see dd-list below. How about keeping it in the archive and maybe use some method (debconf note, for instance: everybody knows I hate them but that would be a good use case) to notify users that they really should add volatile to their sources.list. The package could even provide an optional entry added to sources.list.d that would point to volatile. This way, users could still "easily" find clamav, packages could still depend on it....and we would have a method for providing a support path. Anothe option would be a relaxed update policy for Stable, maybe only for clamav (I would love to see the same relaxed update policy for other stuff, samba coming to mind...bu tthat's another story).
Description: Digital signature