[...] > > >> > > >> Does the package in etch still work with current signature databases? > > >> (I've recently seen a report to the contrary.) > > >> > > > > > > I don't think that there are any incompatibilities introduced in post-etch > > > versions, even though the version in etch may be unable to make use of > > > all of > > > the features in current signature databases. > > > > I've just checked, and freshclam runs just fine (for some values of > > "fine", of course, given that some signatures are ignored). Looks > > like the report was wrong. Sorry for the noise. > > I've mentioned in my previous mail from 12th Nov: > > | No, it's not a regression, but apparently the standard behaviour of clamav > | with current signature databases. There's also a bug about it: #454587. > | (Note that according to my experience it's much worse than described in the > | bug nowadays). > > And it's totally reproducible at our production system at work. (Until we > upgraded > to a more current version) >
Does your statement imply that we should try to backport a fix for this issue for etch-security? Thanks, Michael
pgpECkyI2LkHZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Pkg-clamav-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-clamav-devel
