On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:48 AM, Kees Theunissen
wrote:
>>I have not had much luck finding a binary package that is not part of
>>a non Slackware install. If anyone finds such a package in their
>>travels I would be very grateful for a link.
>
> Have a look at
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018, Bill S wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:47 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>> point was that there are binary packages which working fine all over
>> distributions
>
>I have not had much luck finding a binary package that is not part of
>a
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:47 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> point was that there are binary packages which working fine all over
> distributions
I have not had much luck finding a binary package that is not part of
a non Slackware install. If anyone finds such
Am 21.02.2018 um 16:06 schrieb Bill S:
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:35 AM, SCOTT PACKARD
wrote:
Bill S -
I found it confusing also; I've only gone through the website's downloads
verbiage.
I was able to find these -4 versions by Googling on the full package name.
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:35 AM, SCOTT PACKARD
wrote:
> Bill S -
> I found it confusing also; I've only gone through the website's downloads
> verbiage.
>
> I was able to find these -4 versions by Googling on the full package name.
> Once I found one, I saw I could go
Am 21.02.2018 um 15:48 schrieb Emanuel:
Is possible to install via yum?
surely when you are at RHEL/CentOS/Fedora
clamav for RHEL/CentOS is maintained in the EPEL repo which is also part
of the Fedora project and you get a working 0.99.3 even for CentOS6
Is possible to install via yum?
El 21/02/18 a las 11:35, SCOTT PACKARD escribió:
Bill S -
I found it confusing also; I've only gone through the website's downloads
verbiage.
I was able to find these -4 versions by Googling on the full package name.
Once I found one, I saw I could go to
Am 21.02.2018 um 15:35 schrieb SCOTT PACKARD:
I found it confusing also; I've only gone through the website's downloads
verbiage.
.fc26 clearly indicates Fedora 26
.el7 would be RHEL7
point was that there are binary packages which working fine all over
distributions and since they simply
Bill S -
I found it confusing also; I've only gone through the website's downloads
verbiage.
I was able to find these -4 versions by Googling on the full package name.
Once I found one, I saw I could go to https://rpmfind.net/ and look there for
clamav, and its dependent packages.
Regards,
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 8:55 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 21.02.2018 um 14:51 schrieb Bill S:
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Reindl Harald
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> why not use distribution packages whci seems to can handel the issues
>>>
Am 21.02.2018 um 14:51 schrieb Bill S:
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
why not use distribution packages whci seems to can handel the issues
properly:
Again my apologies. I was not aware there were revised -4 flavors
available. When ever I
On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> you post is crap because you don't point to any refereneces (url to said
> patch and son on) nor talking what is a "newer GCC" in your point of view
> and especially in the context of the problem
My apologies. I
Am 21.02.2018 um 14:06 schrieb Bill S:
I think there was a patch issued over a week ago for the problem
0.99.3 has with newer versions of GCC. Based on that I have two
questions.
1. Will version 0.99.3 ever be revised so you do not have to use the patch?
2. If the answer to question 1 is
13 matches
Mail list logo