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

Re: clamav

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007, Kevin Fenzi wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:00:44 -0600
> smooge gmail com ("Stephen John Smoogen") wrote:
> > > It doesn't look like anyone wants to step up and maintain the
> > > current package in EPEL.
> > >
> >
> > Actually I would be interested in doing it in the form you mentioned
> > below. I thought it was moving behind the scenes from the last email
> > you quoted above. I could be a co-maintainer as I have not maintained
> > anything to this date.
> Excellent. I think with packages like clamav that have lots of security
> updates in their history it would be good to have a number of
> (co)maintainers of the package. That way someone would always be around
> to push security updates...
> The more the better.
> Let's see what Dag thinks of us being able to use his package and go
> from there.

I have no problem helping out or discussing the SPEC file. I am pretty
sure that a lot of improvements can be made and flow back.

I also have no problem if the RPMforge SPEC files are to be used by other
projects, and I know some people have done this. I do not feel that the
SPEC files contain anything 'special'. In fact, I would not be surprised
if people can come up with (almost) exactly the same SPEC file for a
project. So I don't feel the need to add a license or copyright, you can
think of the SPEC file as being in the public domain.

In fact, I prefer that people use existing SPEC files and improve on them
so that at least different packages have the same basis (and naming). I
welcome feedback and ideas, but can understand to need for control and
authority within a seperate project.

--   dag wieers,  dag wieers com,  http://dag.wieers.com/   --
[Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]

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