[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: BUG: clamav packages badly broken



On Sat, 29 Dec 2007 10:34:29 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:

> Adding in a package for
> basic configurations has been closed as a wontfix in the past.
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=161953

Quote: 

| 'clamav-milter' itself should work out-of-the-box (after
| commenting out the 'Example' line in /etc/clamd.d/milter.conf);

Is that true? (I think requiring the admin to acknowledge an
example config file is not asked too much)

But I referred to the case the Fedora packager doesn't like: a single
system-wide clamd instance. Surely such a service can be provided in a
separate package, building on top of the clamav base (like the exim-clamav
package for Exim does it).

> > > > They do work, albeit differently than Dag's.
> > >
> > > Not the packages I installed today, they don't. Proof: install them,
> > > then run "service clamav-wrapper start" (or whatever is the name of that
> > > broken symlink). Anything happened at all?
> >
> > You are not supposed to run that. Read the documentation first.
> >
> 
> Why does every  time this package come up we end up with the same
> comments...

Because everytime it comes up, it's ignorance that leads to the initial
complaints. Not all files in /etc/rc.d/init.d/ are service initscripts.
None of the documentation claims that one should start clamav like that.
Then, a person who complains is told about the need to complete
configuration files first (which sounds like an interactive helper-script
could aid with that), and the person still doesn't admit that the packages
work. Instead, it is repeated that those configuration steps should not be
necessary at all, and it is referred to a 3rd party package which starts a
single preconfigured daemon. The Fedora packager points out what he thinks
is wrong about starting a single clamd, and the discussion loops back to
the beginning.

That's why I suggest this issue is taken in front of a relevant Fedora
technical committee to decide on whether it is too complicated to set up
the packages and whether the packages fit into the Fedora Packaging
philosophy.

> there seem to have been several more in the old
> bugzilla.us one that I cant get to.

The initial package reviews have not been straight-forward, especially not
since they contained technical problems and typos, which caused them to
malfunction and which lead to a series of questions and answers about
several aspects of the package design. For example, the purpose of the
sub-packages, "virtual packages" and "capabilities" was not obvious or
lead to feedback.

At least one bigger thread should be on old fedora-extras-list.

> It is a different packaging philosophy that Enricho has.. but it does
> seem to be different than most packages that Fedora ships. I am having
> a hard time coming up with a mainstream package that does it that
> way.. which I think is what causes the large amount of cognitive
> dissonance, and harsh opinions when they come up.

Is setting up Samba or ntpd so much easier?

Heavy usage of virtual packages/capabilities in the clamav packaging may
be intimidating, but it boils down to a documentation issue (and the
package %descriptions explain quite a bit already).


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]