Re: opposition against clamav-data in debian volatile
Marc Haber wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:52:17 +0000 (UTC), Philipp Kern
> <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-09-19, Marc Haber <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:56:07 +0000 (UTC), Philipp Kern
>>> <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2009-09-18, Tom Feiner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>>> Looks like this method works well for clamav-data and other similar packages
>>>>> which needs to update databases frequently on stable/oldstable.
>>>> clamav-data is scheduled for deletion as soon as volatile moves onto
>>>> ftp-master, so that's no precedent. (I.e. there is opposition against
>>>> daily builds entering the archive without real developers signing them.)
>>> Why does the person responsible for these uploads not know about this
>>> opposition? Why was the person doing the significant work not informed
>>> about the fact that every single minute put into the package is wasted
>> If I recall the channel discussion correctly you were present and aware of
>> the discontinuation. Maybe I recall it incorretly, though.
> Das muss ich verdrängt haben. I still get absolutely furious about
> this "decision" when I think about it, so I'd better not think about
> Thanks for the reminder. I'm going to kill off clamav-data the second
> the build process breaks for the next time. It's really a shame to see
> weeks of work going down the drain due to political restrictions.
Hmm, nothing is black and white. The current way of uploading
clamav-data is suboptimal and ftpmasters don't want that to continue
when volatile is integrated in the main archive. Though that does not
mean there are no alternatives. Back then you did not seem interested in
any alternative way of doing it and rather discontinue the service
completely. Is this still true or should we start thinking of alternatives?