> > > > Wasn't it better to simply let these system go the way they were used > to? > > > > What's the difference from the clamav standpoint? > > The ClamAV developers want to continue on with things they way they are > used to. They don't want to overhaul their update system just so they > can continue to support a version of the software which is rapidly > becoming less usable. > > You proposed that the change the way that 0.96 updates. Fine, that > could have been done. But what about 0.95? Which is arguably the most > deployed version at this moment. It was first released on 2009-03-23, > and the last update was made 2009-10-28. It properly handles > incremental updates of large signatures, and will continue to need new > signatures for a while longer. 0.96 was just released on 2010-03-31. > > There's no way to stop updates for 0.94 and below, while still > providing > updates for the heavily used 0.95, even if changes were made for 0.96.
In 6 months there were many clamav updates. I would have put the current.cvd1 trick early in one of them, then I would have waited enough time to allow distributions and users to deploy it, then I would have stopped dns responses to the current.cvd branch, and finally I would have started distributing new signatures. I don't know exactly how large is the problem, but if it is, this is something that can still be done, supposed freshclam is still working. But this would now imply a huge amount of traffic in order to distribute a new database with old signatures, if at all possible. _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
