> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 13:47:31 -0800, Florin Andrei wrote: > >> Just a few quick observations: > > Funny. The differerent design of the Fedora clamav packages has been a > topic on various lists long ago. Actually, there's some rationale behind > the complexity of the Fedora clamav packages: packager's decision based on > security and versatility beyond basic clamav usage. The packages include > %doc files. You can't avoid reading them. The packages are not compatible > with Dag's packages. They have never been compatible with Dag's. This is > no secret. They do work, albeit differently than Dag's. > > Unfortunately, the clamav users within the Fedora community have not cared > enough about clamav in Fedora as would be necessary to either a) reach a > consensus on how to package them, b) work with the original Fedora > packager on enhancing them with a more convenient setup procedure, or c) > do sufficient lobbying in order to convince Fedora Project leadership that > something is "wrong" with Fedora's clamav packages and may need > decision-finding on a higher level.
Incidentally, I use clamav in production on fedora with sendmail. No issues. Just had to make the socket paths in the config files match, and voila. > _______________________________________________ > epel-devel-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list > -- novus ordo absurdum _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
