On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 09:50:09AM +0100, Simon Hobson said: > Dan wrote: > > >Yes, some updates can be problematic. But in this case, surely, > >there were updates during the year that worked just fine. In most > >cases, tho, I'm thinking the people complaining slacked off > >completely - unlike you, they didn't even bother to test the > >releases. > > And cf todays thread (LibClamAV Error: Can't load), which can be > summararised as : It was working fine You broke it for me
You seem to be massively missing the point. In a short while, there will be signatures in the database that will have the same effect for older versions of clamd, because they will trigger the same bug. Which way would you prefer clamd to die - with a helpful error message, or with a hex string that makes no sense to you? That was the only choice. Despite the drain on their resources these older versions are, despite the fact that older versions were hampering their ability to write new signatures, they still chose the option to make it fail with a helpful message after a long lead time instead of ignoring the issue and letting it die with an incomprehensible error message. Would you have preferred them to just let this happen without a clear indication of the problem? -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Stephen Gran | Your object is to save the world, while | | st...@lobefin.net | still leading a pleasant life. | | http://www.lobefin.net/~steve | | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
