[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ClamAV supportability in stable release (was: Unidentified subject!)

Sorry, debian-release@bugs.d.o really doesn't exist...

> Hi all,
> (Dared to fix CC/Subject which seemed to be somewhat broken in initial email.)
> > The release team have been asked to remove ClamAV from testing (and
> > hence the next stable release. See bug #587058.
> > 
> > The issue seems to be that it's not supportable in stable due to the
> > upstream maintainers deciding to upgrade their data files in a way that
> > isn't binary compatable with previous versions.
> > 
> > A couple of options have been mentioned for what to do with this,
> > including volatile. I'm opening this mail thread for discussion, and if
> > no one comments then I'll go ahead and action the bug report in two
> > weeks. For avoidance of doubt, this will also affect reverse
> > depends, see dd-list below.
> > 
> [...]
> Has there been feedback other than Christian's idea of adding a
> kind-of-transitional package? Speaking as clamav maintainer, we'll happily
> continue to upload to unstable, and if migration to testing (and stable) is
> permitted - so be it, but the volatile-path seems to be a lot more promising and
> future-proof. That said, the clamav ABI/API is surely stabilizing and hence
> users of clamav packages from stable might be better off than before. But
> there's no guarantee that they really get all the latest&greatest detection
> capabilities. 
> One clear volatile-only advantage is added cleanliness: No need to mess around
> with different versions that actually are the same packages, and it just feels a
> lot better if we can have a package in volatile only, and not in unstable as
> well.
> Best,
> Michael

Attachment: pgp1dv3mXWDuQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: