Re: should clamav-data package supersede clamav-db ?

Jima <jima@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> · Tue, 10 Apr 2007 10:51:37 -0500 (CDT)

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, David Timms wrote:

Jima wrote :

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, David Timms wrote:

Perhaps changing the clamav-data package to obsolete clamav-db would be 

the nicest way to solve this. And if forge/fresh continue to package, it 

might be worth suggesting they do similar for their package ?

  -1, Flamebait ;-)

Jima: Can you estimate 'when' it's been discussed before ?

 This specific issue?  I'm not sure it has.  I was referring more to the 

act of starting a thread that pits Fedora against outside repository 

maintainers.

2) To consider using the clamav-db name instead of clamav-data

Which name fits the guidelines ?  {-data is currently in extras}

 Guidelines?  Third-party repositories don't have to follow any guidelines 

besides their own (which is both good and bad).

Then also poke the Extras clamav maintainer to have the proper
"Obsoletes: clamav-db <= last-known-V-R" added to the clamav-data
package.

This will achieve what I though we would want in fedora;, but would also be 

susceptible to rpmforge releasing a later V or R, and causing a change to the 

rpmforge packages, wouldn't it ?

 This is the turf war angle I mentioned earlier.

I read several complaints on fedora-list about the way clamav is packaged 

in Extras, I think that's why a lot of people use the RPMs from other 

repos...

I don't have time at the moment to scan the archives. Can you remember if 

these seemed like fixable issues while still fitting the fedora packaging 

guidelines ?

 It seems to me that issues with how a package is designed should be 

brought up via Requests For Enhancement in Bugzilla, not as complaints on 

a mailing list.  I think RFEs have a better chance of being addressed.

     Jima

--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list