On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 00:34:33 +0100 "Steffen Heil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi > > > Now you're comparing ClamAV to close source software where > > such a model is easy and painless. > > And you are misunderstanding him. No, I'm not. The OP wants us to provide binary updates for the engine. After reading your post I conclude you want the same. > He voted for distinction between engine and host software. > Which I think is really a great idea (not a new one though). The engine is already separated. See the sources. > So, it might be a good idea to be able to update that file with > freshclam. It needn't be your servers, but could be local company > servers, which deliver the new binary and all company systems could be > updates automatically. This model has been already implemented and Debian packages for ClamAV is a great example. > And even if it is uncommon, it might not be such a bad idea to provide > such updates on clamav.net. Not at the cost of not providing the > source code, but as a quick way to update clamav for those users that http://lurker.clamav.net/message/20050301.194512.4cd59372.en.html We're not limited to three or four architectures. -- oo ..... Tomasz Kojm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (\/)\......... http://www.ClamAV.net/gpg/tkojm.gpg \..........._ 0DCA5A08407D5288279DB43454822DC8985A444B //\ /\ Wed Mar 2 01:05:14 CET 2005
pgpg616RpWusU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
