James Lick wrote:
Jason Haar wrote:
I am now going to figure out a way that the installation of Qmail-Scanner
will *ignore* the presense of clamdscan if its actually clamscan - that is
really too gross to allow to continue.
The ClamAV authors could put a stop to this by making clamdscan and clamscan the same program and then acting differently depending on which name is run. This is similiar to how gzip and gunzip are actually the same program but when called as gzip it compresses and as gunzip it uncompresses.
The way I understand it most people recommend that the argv[0] mechanism be only used
a) each of the programs functionality would duplicate significant portions of functionality/code
b) there be a command-line switch that overrides any meaning argv[0] may have
c) there should be an intelligent default
Its not done nearly as often as it is _possible_ to be done, for the above reasons. Gzip and sendmail are some well known programs who do this. However, most people do not agree that sendmail is a textbook example of fine design. I believe GNU coding conventions recommends against the practice as well.
Often one accomplishes the goal of (a) above by linking in some of the object files of one program to another. Or a library....wait...clamav does this already.
As far as I am aware sym/hard links are currently only commonplace on unix-like systems. This would be an unneccessary hardship to the windows porters.
As for the stated goal, my personal feelings is that just as users should not be trying to thwart developers, neither should developers try to thwart users.
And since large portions of clamscan arguments do not apply for clamdscan, we would be provoking more confusion in that regard as well.
I also suspect that there is far less similarity in the code for clamscan and clamdscan than one would expect....but I havent looked recently.
As for the packager, his instructions do clearly note that it is his personal workaround preference. People who ignore that disclaimer are IMO doing so at their own risk. So are people who install complext software without reading *any* of the vendor(clamav) supplied doc. My alma mater, School Of Hard Knocks advises me that they deserve what they get. However, this list does not deserve the repeated annoyance of answering the same question.
Most intelligent humans seem to feel that answering the same question repeatedly is a unique 21st century form of torture.
Were I the packager, my personal workaround preference would be to configure qscan to call clamscan, instead of mucking with the clamav install. Furthermore, the documentation appears to have been updated for the .80 series -- notice the use of clamd.conf
(Perhaps the workaround is meant to be overriden by newer installs of clamav?)
Excuse the above rants...
Joe _______________________________________________ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
