clamav for epel looking for reviewer

Stephen John Smoogen smooge at
Thu Dec 6 18:43:30 UTC 2007

On Dec 6, 2007 10:26 AM, Steven Pritchard <steve at> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 07:39:51PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > There isn't any guideline either way. I usually prefer to use patches
> > myself, but this spec is based on one from Dag, and he used the perl
> > substitutions in there, so I left it in order to keep close to his spec.
> So EPEL clamav is going to look like Dag's, not like the "regular"
> Fedora clamav?

Yes.. this was discussed several times in the past. Part of it was
that a lot of enterprise people use dag's as it was there first and it
works  with what they had.. second it was a peace offering in some
ways to try and say 'look' we are looking to work with others by using
what is 'best' for enterprise environments. Third.. this started at a
time when enrico was not going to push past 0.87 for some technical
reasons and DAG had 0.91 or so that people were needing for audits and

> I'm not really a fan of the Fedora clamav packages, but I do have to
> live with them (for amavisd-new).  How much pain is this fork going to
> cause me?
> Honestly, I think I'd rather volunteer to maintain Enrico's clamav spec
> in EPEL than even think about maintaining forked amavisd-new specs.

I would prefer to see how much work it was. I

Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"

More information about the epel-devel-list mailing list