> This one time, at band camp, Michael Stone said: > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 07:27:14PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > > >I think one the reason why clamav is in volatile is that the engine > > >might need updating to detect new viruses. Is that something you > > >want to support in stable-security? > > > > I think there's a couple of questions to answer: > > 1) is there any point in deploying a virus scanner with outdated > > definitions? > > Not in my opinion. > > > 2) is volatile well known enough that everyone installing a virus > > scanner with debian is using the version in volatile? > > Sadly, no. We still get people using the version shipped in etch on > #clamav and the clamav-users list, although the numbers are going down > over time. I'm hoping that the lenny release will help, as volatile is > more likely to end up in people's sources.list. I'm right now in the process of preparing an upload of clamav 0.95rc1; as such, the question is: where to upload to? unstable? volatile? Any of the other queues? Thanks, Michael
Attachment:
pgptKGFQTHXMK.pgp
Description: PGP signature