On Thu, 6 Dec 2007 11:26:46 -0600 steve silug org (Steven Pritchard) 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? Thats my hope. > 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? I don't know, but I would love to hear. Do you want me to investigate? Or can you take a look at the clamav packages and see? I suspect this package would work with amavisd-new much easier than the fedora one. > Honestly, I think I'd rather volunteer to maintain Enrico's clamav > spec in EPEL than even think about maintaining forked amavisd-new > specs. Can we see how much difference there would be first? I would also be willing to co-maintain the epel amavisd-new if it would help. > > Steve kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature