should clamav-data package supersede clamav-db ?

[Jima]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Marc Schwartz wrote:
> The issue is:
>
> 1. As far as I can see, unless you can point me to it, the latest
> version of clamav is not in any of the relevant repos targeted for F7.

  Huh?

fedora/extras/development/i386/clamav-0.90.1-2.fc7.i386.rpm
fedora/extras/development/i386/clamav-data-0.90.1-2.fc7.i386.rpm
fedora/extras/development/i386/clamav-data-empty-0.90.1-2.fc7.i386.rpm
fedora/extras/development/i386/clamav-devel-0.90.1-2.fc7.i386.rpm
fedora/extras/development/i386/clamav-filesystem-0.90.1-2.fc7.i386.rpm
fedora/extras/development/i386/clamav-lib-0.90.1-2.fc7.i386.rpm
fedora/extras/development/i386/clamav-milter-0.90.1-2.fc7.i386.rpm
fedora/extras/development/i386/clamav-milter-sysv-0.90.1-2.fc7.i386.rpm
fedora/extras/development/i386/clamav-server-0.90.1-2.fc7.i386.rpm
fedora/extras/development/i386/clamav-server-sysv-0.90.1-2.fc7.i386.rpm
fedora/extras/development/i386/clamav-update-0.90.1-2.fc7.i386.rpm

  Looks to me like 0.90.1 should be in F7.

> 3. There are comments and pointers to scripts in the Bugzilla report
> that I referenced, by me and others, relative to at least possible and
> reasonable 'automated' upgrade processes during the RPM installation
> procedures. As far as I and others can tell, Enrico seems to be
> resistant to even exploring and testing these as possible options.

  While I may or may not agree with Enrico's positions on workarounds 
(which I readily admit I haven't looked at), I do respect his decision to 
hold off 0.90.1 until F7.  Major bumps (especially ones that have serious 
potential to break installs) generally shouldn't happen within a release.

      Jima