clamd handicraft work

[Warren Togami]

Nathan Grennan wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 11:35 +0200, Enrico Scholz wrote:
> 
>>For what do you need a clamd-instance? The 'clamd' daemon is only useful
>>for special services (e.g. amavisd, mimedefang) and there can not exist
>>a single clamd instance which fits for all these services. Users do not
>>need the daemon overall; 'clamscan' works without it also.
>>
>>For full information, I suggest to read the corresponding tickets on
>>fedora.us's bugzilla. Most of the design decisions of the clamav package
>>are explained there.
>>
>>http://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=268
>>http://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=1508
>>http://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=1715
> 
> 
>  I understand the reason why you did the clamav package the way you did,
> but overall your results are much worse than dag's or other's who
> package clamav. The convoluted setup your package requires isn't much
> better than just starting with a tarball. I agree with Warren's idea of
> creating clamav-(package) packages.

"Much worse" than naive and insecure by default packages?

> 
>  The current Fedora Extras clamav package is bad enough, I call for
> having it removed until someone can do a proper package.

Why agree with the idea of clamav-(service instance) packages and at the 
same time throw out the entire idea?  You are just being irrationally 
upset that it requires extra configuration to get services working? 
Make those service instance packages and add them to Extras.

Warren Togami
wtogami at redhat.com