clamav

lumiwa · 2007-02-26 12:12:13

We have version 0.88 but version 0.9 is about two weeks available.
Thank you.

[vEX] · 2007-02-26 13:05:34

It's better to report outdated packages on the package site http://archlinux.org/packages/search/?r … =&limit=50, as you can see someone already flagged clamav out-of-date so an update will be available once the maintainer gets to it.

adderd · 2007-02-26 14:05:14

Yeah but I'm starting to wonder if the package maintainer is dead in a ditch somewhere. It doesn't take two weeks to update the package. The maintainer has been pretty on top of things in the past (normally it's updated right away) but this time around it's getting excessive. I'm starting to wonder if I should just compile it myself. It's annoying to see the clamav warnings in my daily log report every single day for weeks.

fk · 2007-02-26 14:17:50

@adderd

All developers have a Real Live, and work on Arch in her free time!

Wait or compile for yourself.

adderd · 2007-02-26 14:55:57

Like I said, I'll do it myself if it comes to it. I was waiting for the official package to update but if the maintainer has dropped off of the face of the Earth then I can do it myself.

To some extent the excuse that they have a real life is valid but largely it's a cop out. Yes, people have lives and they do this for free but if someone is going to take three weeks to update a package then maybe there should be someone else who can also update that package. It sucks to wait for one person to get around to updating something. Can packages have multiple maintainers? I hate compiling something myself only to find out that the proper maintainer then also did it and now I've got the source tree laying around compiled and maybe I didn't install something to the same place or otherwise did something else that the maintainer didn't do... It's just all around easier if packages are updated in a timely fashion. Like I said, normally the maintainer is really on top of the game. And so I really do wonder if they are dead, on vacation, or not playing attention.

The biggest thing for me is that I don't want to compile it myself if the maintainer is about to do it. A little feedback would be a nice thing to have.

Pierre · 2007-02-26 16:44:34

see this thread: http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch … 13561.html

lumiwa · 2007-02-26 19:25:57

It looks not good for clamav users...

lumiwa · 2007-02-26 20:10:35

lumiwa wrote:

It looks not good for clamav users...

http://www.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch … 13561.html

Above is a link for mailing list talking about clamav...

F · 2007-02-27 00:41:12

This may be a little offtopic, but may I ask why the heck you guys have/use an anti-virus for Linux?

Anonymo · 2007-02-27 00:48:56

F wrote:

This may be a little offtopic, but may I ask why the heck you guys have/use an anti-virus for Linux?

maybe running a server, email filtering for windows machines.:rolleyes:

lumiwa · 2007-02-27 01:44:50

F wrote:

This may be a little offtopic, but may I ask why the heck you guys have/use an anti-virus for Linux?

Why not? There are viruses for Unix/linux too...

I have many emails with attachment which sent me for my work and I sent forward too and it is not fair if you send to someone email with virus?

F · 2007-02-27 06:17:50

lumiwa wrote:

F wrote:
This may be a little offtopic, but may I ask why the heck you guys have/use an anti-virus for Linux?
Why not? There are viruses for Unix/linux too...

No, not really. I mean, technically yes, but no.

I have many emails with attachment which sent me for my work and I sent forward too and it is not fair if you send to someone email with virus?

Why would you forward a dubious email with an attatchment to all your friends in the first place?

lumiwa · 2007-02-27 11:47:57

Why would you forward a dubious email with an attatchment to all your friends in the first place?

I don't know what is you job but I know what is mine.

adderd · 2007-02-27 12:26:23

lumiwa wrote:

It looks not good for clamav users...

Yeah, the great part is that now the lack of updates from the package maintainer is more than an annoyance it's a security risk. THIS is why people need to be on the ball and either 1. Update the packages they maintain OR 2. Find someone who can. Turns out that the up to date version of ClamAV doesn't have the problem listed in that mailing list thread but the version in the Arch Repository does.

Well, I guess since the package maintainer is dead I'll have to download and compile ClamAV myself...

Pierre · 2007-02-27 13:23:06

Well, that`s the reason why we should have a security team with permission to upload updated packages if a maintainer is not available.

adderd · 2007-02-27 15:16:37

Pierre wrote:

Well, that`s the reason why we should have a security team with permission to upload updated packages if a maintainer is not available.

Yes, that would be very good.

Snarkout · 2007-02-27 18:04:22

F wrote:

lumiwa wrote:
F wrote:
This may be a little offtopic, but may I ask why the heck you guys have/use an anti-virus for Linux?
Why not? There are viruses for Unix/linux too...
No, not really. I mean, technically yes, but no.

I have many emails with attachment which sent me for my work and I sent forward too and it is not fair if you send to someone email with virus?
Why would you forward a dubious email with an attatchment to all your friends in the first place?

I don't run arch on production servers, but I do run clamav. I can tell you that I am not in a position to tell my customers that they cannot send "dubious" attachments, but clam av running on my smtp servers can, with a nice little popup. Add mimedefang to the mix, and you can actually have an explanation in that popup like "I'm sorry, this message contains a .exe file, and I cannot allow that to be sent as is." That being said, Red Hat doesn't even include clamav, clamav milter, mimedefang, or anything else of the sort, so arch is at least offering its users that much of a leg up - I imagine the munging of the PKGBUILD would be minimal.

Also, many people on mailing lists I am a member of have reported issues with the latest version of clamav - I cannot confirm any of these issues
since I haven't had any problems with it myself.

Arch Linux

#1 2007-02-26 12:12:13

clamav

#2 2007-02-26 13:05:34

Re: clamav

#3 2007-02-26 14:05:14

Re: clamav

#4 2007-02-26 14:17:50

Re: clamav

#5 2007-02-26 14:55:57

Re: clamav

#6 2007-02-26 16:44:34

Re: clamav

#7 2007-02-26 19:25:57

Re: clamav

#8 2007-02-26 20:10:35

Re: clamav

#9 2007-02-27 00:41:12

Re: clamav

#10 2007-02-27 00:48:56

Re: clamav

#11 2007-02-27 01:44:50

Re: clamav

#12 2007-02-27 06:17:50

Re: clamav

#13 2007-02-27 11:47:57

Re: clamav

#14 2007-02-27 12:26:23

Re: clamav

#15 2007-02-27 13:23:06

Re: clamav

#16 2007-02-27 15:16:37

Re: clamav

#17 2007-02-27 18:04:22

Re: clamav

Board footer