On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 12:47:28 -0300
Renato Botelho wrote:
> Since API was chenged one more time, a new RC will be released to
> 0.95? I'm just asking it because I maintain clamav at FreeBSD ports
> and I tested all dependant ports with clam 0.95-RC1 and notified
> maintainers of all ports that doe
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 20:01:59 +0300
Eugene Crosser wrote:
> Tomasz,
>
> thank you for your attention to my concerns. Now I can go ahead and
> adjust zmscanner's clamav plugin to use the new API ... with confidence! :-)
You're welcome!
--
oo. Tomasz Kojm
(\/)\.
Tomasz,
thank you for your attention to my concerns. Now I can go ahead and
adjust zmscanner's clamav plugin to use the new API ... with confidence! :-)
Eugene
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
http://lurker.clamav.net/list/cla
On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Tomasz Kojm wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 12:39:47 +0300
> Eugene Crosser wrote:
>
>> To mitigate this problem (if you *really* want to get rid of cl_limits
>> structure exposed to the user), you might introduce separate pairs of
>> accessor functions for differen
On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 12:39:47 +0300
Eugene Crosser wrote:
> To mitigate this problem (if you *really* want to get rid of cl_limits
> structure exposed to the user), you might introduce separate pairs of
> accessor functions for different types of arguments, e.g.:
>
> cl_engine_{get|set}_size(...,
Gentlemen,
I have a couple of concerns about the new libclamav API introduced in
0.95 (rc1). I understand the reason to remove cl_limits structure, but I
think that the way it was done is, hmm, suboptimal.
cl_engine_set() and cl_engine_get() accessors have void* for the
argument, which may point
