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

Re: [Pkg-clamav-devel] The future of clamav wrt. stable/volatile



[...] (nice technical insight)
> 
> In my opinion all the programs with the ability to talk to clamd (or to
> invoke clamscan/clamdscan) can be safely left under stable. The user has
> still got the ability to use an updated clamav from volatile with no
> problems at all.
> On the other hand, programs which can only link libclamav should be
> divided into two categories: real-life tools and other tools.
> In the the first set are all those things which are designed to scan
> live malware, like mail or web scanners. These should preferably go to
> volatile.
> The second group contains all the rest, which is basically GUIs, offline
> file system scanners, and the like. Leaving these under stable is
> probably fair enough.
> 

There is just a slightly archive-specific problem: A package in main must not
depend on something outside main (at least so I guess, I couldn't find the docs
stating this rightaway). We'd thus need some clamav package in main, and not
only in volatile. Which more or less is the situation we have today.

To me, the approach of moving clamav + all its rdepends to volatile really looks
like the only option. I thus dared to question all the refusals stated thus far.
I'd really like to see some fundamental issues arising by a move to volatile.
Still, of course, it means that quite a few packages will need to move to
volatile-only.

Thanks,
Michael

Attachment: pgpFSZQvhS0OZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: