On 2014-06-25 01:54:06 [+0200], Andreas Cadhalpun wrote: > Hi, Hi, > I have been going over the remaining clamav bugs and closed those, which I > found invalid. > > As I understand it, the situation for the remaining bugs is: > > Forwarded bugs: > * #636881: waiting for upstream inclusion yes > * #690788: waiting for upstream reply > * #690789: waiting for upstream reply Those two look similar as both are about web downloads. I asked upstream to make them public. I have no idea what upstream did here but I guess nothing. The easiest way to close/fix both is probably to use libcurl for the download. I just browsed freshclam/manager.c which seems to do the work here and it looks like they implemented everything (includung proxy support) more or less from scratch.
> * #740059: waiting for upstream inclusion > None of the forwarded bugs are publicly accessible. > So has there been progress on any of them? > Maybe we should create an account for the pkg-clamav-devel list and > add it to the CC list of all these bugs. But then you still can't login and comment unless we share a common login. I just asked upstream to make it public. > * #295547: TODO: update patch -> ping upstream Yes, we could do that. In case nothing happens we could close this since the reported said he does no loger care. > Outstanding bugs: > * #636877: blocked by 636881 So the best case scenario is once we get 636881 fixed, we can think how we get that files removed on update :) > * #675558: TODO: Can clamav be made to use the system libmspack? oh yes. This looks like fun. I think yes it should work. The purpose / required functionality is the same. > * #393258: Should we split clamdscan from the clamd package and make > clamdscan only recommend clamd? It makes sense for the scenario mentioned. > * #530520 The mail mentioned in bug report is probably http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2008-08/0797.html It looks 100% harmless. The fix would be either for postfix not to open a connection before we have the hostname (which makes me wonder why do we need to resolve the hostname at all). The simpler way would be to drop the message about host unknown. We could add a reference to this email explaining the situation, drop the check (or the resolve of the hostname in case it does not matter) and see how upstream reacts. , #529986: What do you think about these? Sounds usefull however I am not sure how many people care about his. The popcon stats is quite low. > * #234926: Wait for reply. Without that, close the bug. He does not care about his anymore, the initial usecase is no longer valid. It would be nice to have the same timestamp but it adds actually no value. If we pull-in libcurl then we get mostlikely the correct timestamp for the complete cvd file downloads. And the problem remains probably for the case where the cvd file is an incremental update. I would say we close this sice Marc no longer cares and the added value has no meaning to anyone. > Best regards, > Andreas Sebastian _______________________________________________ Pkg-clamav-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-clamav-devel
