[i am sorry for the empty message; this was the content i meant to send] 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. I think you are missing the point. 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? If you ask me, having an outdated clamav is worse than having no clamav.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. -- Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them! .''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@debian.org> : :' : proud Debian developer, admin, and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature