Re: Updating scanners and filters in Debian stable (3.1)
* martin f krafft (madduck@debian.org) [041004 23:45]:
> also sprach Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> [2004.10.04.2336 +0200]:
> > Frankly speaking, the question whether to include clamav or not in
> > sarge is IMHO not a question whether volatile exists or not.
> > Either clamav is stable enough to be part of a stable release or
> > not.
> clamav can be as stable as a rock but be completely useless... when
> two months after Sarge's release, a new virus hits hard, and in
> order to detect it, clamav needs libfoo, which is not in Debian.
> What then? *Maybe* we could push a new clamav via security.d.o, but
> what about libfoo?
We can push neither of them into Debian via security.d.o. No, sorry,
this is not the way stable works.
> If you ask me, having an outdated clamav is worse than having no
> clamav. False security, anyone? Thus, if we don't find a proper
> solution, I would vote for its removal.
But this is _independed_ of the existence of something like volatile.
And, that was all I said. Asking for removal from sarge has nothing to
do with the existence of volatile.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Reply to: