On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 12:56:43 +0100 Michael Tautschnig <[email protected]> wrote: >[...] >> > >> > We had discussed this during the Security Team meeting in Essen: We believe >> > clamav shouldn't be included in stable; malware scan engines are a constantly >> > moving target and it's pointless to backport changes since new signatures >> > constantly require new scan engine features all the time. So moving it to >> > volatile is the best solution for everyone. >> Ehm, its not a solution for me to move dansguardian to volatile only. It >> guess that counts for other applications that link against clamav too. >> > >Would you mind adding the rationale why this is not a solution for you? I'm not >claiming that moving to volatile indeed is a solution, but getting some more >insight would be nice.
One question I have (I have not dealt with volatile before) is about support for multiple releases. Does it have separate pockets for stable and oldstable? Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
