Hi ScottI have now walked through the difference in the debian directories between the version in jessie and stretch updates.I think there is more work than just a simple changelog update.1) The changelog file contain a lot of changes. I wonder how we generally should it. If I backport a package from current stable should I keep that changelog and just add one entry or should I pretent that the jessie version still apply and add one entry from that one... Not sure myself.2) /lib/systemd/system/clamav-daemon.socket is no longer installed and a patch introduced to not depend on it3) Config file moved from /etc/systemd/system/clamav-daemon.socket.d/extend.conf to /etc/systemd/system/clamav-daemon.service.d/extend.conf4) Changes in postinst. Not sure if it is backwards compatible or not yet. Preliminary not.5) Debhelper compat updated. Should be ok.6) Build dependency changes.7) clamav-dbg package no longer provided8) so files moved from /usr/lib/libclamav.so to /usr/lib/xxx/libclamav.so and pkgconfig moved accordingly.9) Support for llvm introduced. Should probably be ok.10) A LOT of symbols changed. They are delared private so it should be ok. But you never know.It would be helpful if you can help me judge if any of the above means backwards incompatibility.I'm most worried about the following:- Socket change- Config file change- Postinst change- clamav-dbg- Symbol changesThank you in advance// OlaOn Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 15:13, Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> wrote: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
----- Inguza Technology AB --- MSc in Information Technology ----| http://inguza.com/ Mobile: +46 (0)70-332 1551 |---------------------------------------------------------------