On Thu, 2010-04-22 at 08:46 +1000, Dan Irwin wrote: > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Felix Schwarz > <felix.schwarz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Some also have security impact. Basically the problem is that it is extremly > > hard to provide the ABI/config stability for clamav. Combined with a few > > questionable decisions when it came to packaging + a not-so-active maintainer > > and we have a basically orphaned package in EPEL. > > This poses the question, is EPEL the ideal place for clamav when it's > a constantly moving target? > > Maybe fedora/epel needs something akin to the debian volatile repo for > things like clamav. (We probably already have this in conceptual terms > from rpmforge) ---- I think Felix hit it on the nose but EPEL is fine but it has not been packaged correctly nor has it been updated - it's now lagging about 2 updates behind. I would guess that terming rpmforge as 'volatile' would depend upon who you ask - I doubt Dag would agree. I tend to think of rpmforge as necessary for running CentOS/RHEL servers and think of EPEL as more 'volatile' Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
