EPEL clamav packages

Craig White craigwhite at azapple.com
Wed Apr 21 23:03:52 UTC 2010


On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 08:46 +1000, Dan Irwin wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Felix Schwarz
> <felix.schwarz at oss.schwarz.eu> wrote:
> 
> > Some also have security impact. Basically the problem is that it is extremly
> > hard to provide the ABI/config stability for clamav. Combined with a few
> > questionable decisions when it came to packaging + a not-so-active maintainer
> > and we have a basically orphaned package in EPEL.
> 
> This poses the question, is EPEL the ideal place for clamav when it's
> a constantly moving target?
> 
> Maybe fedora/epel needs something akin to the debian volatile repo for
> things like clamav. (We probably already have this in conceptual terms
> from rpmforge)
----
I think Felix hit it on the nose but EPEL is fine but it has not been
packaged correctly nor has it been updated - it's now lagging about 2
updates behind.

I would guess that terming rpmforge as 'volatile' would depend upon who
you ask - I doubt Dag would agree. I tend to think of rpmforge as
necessary for running CentOS/RHEL servers and think of EPEL as more
'volatile'

Craig


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.



More information about the users mailing list