Re: about volatile.d.o/n

[paddy <paddy@panici.net>]

On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 10:43:05AM -0400, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Kevin Mark said:
> > On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 11:00:51AM +0200, Francesco Paolo Lovergine wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 03:01:11AM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
> > > > Packages like virus checkers seem to be
> > > > composed of 2 parts: the app program and the data where the data in
> > > > this case are virus sigs and the app is say clamav. And the 'volitile'
> > > > part is the virus sigs whereas the app (once it hits stable) shouldnt
> > > > change unless it warrents a 'security' update. So, volitile should be
> > > > for the data/virus sigs that need updating when new bugs hit the 'net.
> > > 
> > > No, often such kind of programs need engine update. That's true for
> > > both AV and antispam programs as well.
> > > 
> > Hi Francesco,
> > so:
> > the program = engine part + (some un-named part) ???
> > and the engine part and the data part are volitile
> 
<snip>
> 
> Right now, it is easy enough to get new data sets - the clamav suite
> inculdes an updater for it's data, and spamassassin is easy to add new
> rules to.  The problem is updating the engine in a stable release.

Indeed, there is a consensus that data updates with the volatility 
of, say, virus scanner sigs belong firmly out-of-band.

Regards,


Paddy

-- 
Perl 6 will give you the big knob. -- Larry Wall