Re: New clamav upstream version: Should it go into squeeze?
["Followup-To:" header set to gmane.linux.debian.devel.release.]
On 2010-10-25, Michael Tautschnig <email@example.com> wrote:
> A few hours ago clamav upstream has released a new version (0.96.4) fixing a
> number of bugs including memory leaks and problems with corrupted PDF files=
> bytecode support is disabled, this could possibly yield a DOS).
> We have prepared updated packages, which are just being uploaded to
> lenny-volatile. The question, however, is whether we should also upload to
> unstable or rather go for experimental. At this point it seems that uploadi=
> ng to
> unstable would only make sense if there is a chance of a freeze exception. =
> this end, please find attached a debdiff between the versions currently in
> squeeze and the new packages. Even though quite a bit of the changes is due=
> configure having been updated, a diffstat of=20
> 77 files changed, 4754 insertions(+), 2411 deletions(-)
> arguably isn't for the faint of heart. Please let us (firstname.lastname@example.org.=
> know whether we should go for unstable (and request a freeze exception) or
> experimental, or follow some completely different route.
Since the planned way to keep clamav updated in Squeeze will be by updating to
the latest current clamav stable release, the same should naturally apply during