[Monday 13 October 2008 - 08:44:56] Tim Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > autoconf files etc. I would therefore suggest a beta2 allowing time to > confirm these changes do not cause problems elsewhere and allowing for > packaging to be generated for other platforms. How does everyone feel about > that?
I have some things on my todo list that I would like to include in beta2; most of them are minor, the only bigger issue is updating the ovaldi support. AFAICT, the integration of the patch that would make ovaldi OpenVAS-compatible out of the box is still in progress, so I'd rather wait until ovaldi has stabilized regarding that before updating the code on the OpenVAS side of things. While I'm quite optimistic that ovaldi should be OpenVAS-compatible by the time we hit 2.0, I'm not sure that they can make it in time for beta2. So I guess we need to decide if we want to have updated (mostly code-wise, not necessarily feature-wise) ovaldi support in beta2 or if this update is sufficient at a later date. Regards, Michael -- Michael Wiegand | OpenPGP key: D7D049EC | http://www.intevation.de/ Intevation GmbH, Neuer Graben 17, 49074 Osnabrück | AG Osnabrück, HR B 18998 Geschäftsführer: Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter, Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner _______________________________________________ Openvas-devel mailing list Openvas-devel@wald.intevation.org http://lists.wald.intevation.org/mailman/listinfo/openvas-devel
