I believe you've misunderstood.
The version in stable is 0.100.3 and does not have a soname bump (nor does it
need one). You should be able to update the LTS with that package with little
more (maybe no more) than an updated changelog.
Scott K
On Monday, April 01, 2019 02:46:34 PM Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hi Scott and LTS team
>
> Thank you. I'll see if I can backport the required fixes. That may solve
> the library issue.
>
> Alternatively we state that clamav is not supported. Maybe someone in the
> LTS team can advice on that.
>
> Best regards
>
> // Ola
>
> On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 at 22:35, Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> wrote:
> > Comments inline.
> >
> > On Sunday, March 31, 2019 09:37:46 PM Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > I missed to include the clamav maintainers. Sorry about that.
> > >
> > > // Ola
> > >
> > > On Sun, 31 Mar 2019 at 21:21, Ola Lundqvist <ola@inguza.com> wrote:
> > > > Dear maintainers, LTS team and Debian Secutiry team
> > > >
> > > > I have started to look at the clamav package update due to
> > > > CVE-2019-1787
> > > > CVE-2019-1788
> > > > CVE-2019-1789
> > > > (the other three vulnerabilities are not affecting jessie or stretch
> >
> > as I
> >
> > > > understand it)
> >
> > That's correct.
> >
> > > > I have understood that the clamav package is typically updated to the
> > > > latest version also in stable and oldstable. However when doing so I
> > > > encountered quite a few things that I would like to ask your advice
> > > > on.
> > > >
> > > > First of all to the maintainers. Do you want to handle also LTS
> > > > (oldstable) and regular security (stable) upload of clamav?
> >
> > Stable is already done through stable proposed updates (which is the
> > normal
> > path for clamav). We leave the LTS releases to the LTS team. Base your
> > work
> > on what's in stable.
> >
> > > > Question to maintainers and Security team. Should we synchronize the
> > > > efforts here and have you already started on the stable update?
> > > >
> > > > If not I have a few questions:
> > > > 1) Do you know the binary compatibility between libclamav7 and
> >
> > libclamav9?
> >
> > > > I have noticed that the package in sid produces libclamav9 while the
> >
> > one
> >
> > > > in jessie provides libclamav7. Do you think this can be an issue?
> >
> > Yes. It's guaranteed to be an issue. We have a stable transition
> > prepared
> > and will do it (once the srm blesses) after the next point release in
> > April.
> > Note that the security team doesn't support clamav.
> >
> > > > 2) Do you think backporting the package in sid is better than simply
> > > > updating to the latest upstream while keeping most scripts in
> >
> > oldstable? I
> >
> > > > had to copy over the split-archive.sh to be able to generate a proper
> >
> > orig
> >
> > > > tarball.
> >
> > No. Use what's in stable proposed updates.
> >
> > > > - I personally think the package in sid have a little too much updates
> >
> > to
> >
> > > > make that safe, especially since it produces new library packages.
> >
> > Agreed. That would definitely be a bad idea.
> >
> > > > - On the other hand, I had to do some modifications already to make
> >
> > allow
> >
> > > > the package to be generated and I have not even started building yet.
> > > > There
> > > > may be many fixes needed to make this package work in oldstable...
> >
> > I suspect that what's in stable will work in oldstable, but I haven't
> > tried
> > it. It'll certainly take less work than what's in sid.
> >
> > > > I guess we cannot generate new library package version, or?
> >
> > Generally one does not, but for clamav you kind of have to at some point.
> > Note that for libclamav7 -> libclamav9 there are also API changes, so
> > libclamav-dev reverse builld-depends need patching in addition to
> > rebuilding.
> > Once we've done that in stable, it should be easy enough to adapt for
> > oldstable when the time comes. Don't worry about it now.
> >
> > Scott K