On Mon, 6 Oct 2008, David F. Skoll wrote: > 1) Issue security updates that *only* fix security problems and > nothing else. This is something that (for example) Red Hat Enterprise > ...
I use CentOS and notice that it auto-updates to the latest ClamAV. And strictly speaking, that is a good thing. An AV package that doesn't stay current isn't very useful. > 2) Issue updates, but make sure they don't break on old config files. > That's what I'm advocating. Agreed. Though I also recognize that sometimes a new feature is incompatible with an old one, or a default changes, and then you need to change the config format. So I advocate notification mechanisms for systems without constant admin oversight. > 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...) (sarcasm on) If you aren't BOFH, you are 'derelict'. But don't worry, you deserve it. (sarcasm off) - Charles _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
