I think everyone should calm down. Both "sides" are right: Sysadmins should upgrade carefully and RTFM. But also, software vendors should try not to break things or surprise users.
The problem is that historically, it has often been necessary to upgrade Clam in a hurry because of a security advisory. During such a hurried upgrade, admins may not have the luxury to be as methodical as they usually are, nor can they operate in a nice calm atmosphere. To address this problem, there are a few approaches: 1) Issue security updates that *only* fix security problems and nothing else. This is something that (for example) Red Hat Enterprise Linux customers spend a lot of money for. Red Hat has a policy of not changing functionality during the life of their systems; they always backport security fixes. It's an awful lot of work, possibly too much to ask of upstream. That's why Red Hat brings in the big bucks. Debian has a similar approach, though without the big bucks. 2) Issue updates, but make sure they don't break on old config files. That's what I'm advocating. 3) Issue updates, and don't care if they break on old config files. That's what some on this list seem to be advocating, and I really cannot understand that position. Do you *enjoy* making people's lives harder? (It seems that we do have a few BOFH nominees on the list...) Regards, David. _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
