On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 10:21:12 -0400, Tony Nelson wrote: > 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. I believe "rpm --query --docfiles clamav-server" lists the readme which is included.
