At 3:20 PM +0200 8/14/05, Michael Schwendt wrote: >On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 14:03:44 +0200, Lars E. Pettersson wrote: > >> Must say that I do not know why it have to be done so complex as is the >> case in Fedora extras now. > >The aforementioned thread on fedora-extras-list gives an answer to >that. In particular, the thread refreshes why a single clamd is considered >wrong. The clamav packages in Fedora Extras build a much more mighty and >flexible framework for clamav than a single package could ever be. A >single package, which "installs and works out-of-the-box" would be a dead >end for the other packages which will be added on top of the clamav base >packages. What appears as if it's an unnecessary list of manual >configuration steps can be solved with additional packages, >e.g. amavis-new. A solution also needs a bit of documentation, especially when the solution is "flexible". Someone wanting to use clamav might think that they needed to install clamav, and if there is more to it than that, they'll need instructions. I'm not sure where those instructions should be in Fedora-land so that someone wanting to install clamav would find them. ____________________________________________________________________ TonyN.:' <mailto:tonynelson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ' <http://www.georgeanelson.com/>
