On Dec 6, 2007 10:26 AM, Steven Pritchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 07:39:51PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > There isn't any guideline either way. I usually prefer to use patches > > myself, but this spec is based on one from Dag, and he used the perl > > substitutions in there, so I left it in order to keep close to his spec. > > So EPEL clamav is going to look like Dag's, not like the "regular" > Fedora clamav? >
Yes.. this was discussed several times in the past. Part of it was that a lot of enterprise people use dag's as it was there first and it works with what they had.. second it was a peace offering in some ways to try and say 'look' we are looking to work with others by using what is 'best' for enterprise environments. Third.. this started at a time when enrico was not going to push past 0.87 for some technical reasons and DAG had 0.91 or so that people were needing for audits and such. > I'm not really a fan of the Fedora clamav packages, but I do have to > live with them (for amavisd-new). How much pain is this fork going to > cause me? > > Honestly, I think I'd rather volunteer to maintain Enrico's clamav spec > in EPEL than even think about maintaining forked amavisd-new specs. > I would prefer to see how much work it was. I -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
