On Thursday 17 February 2011 11:05:42 Camaleón wrote: > On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 10:38:24 -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > > On Thursday 17 February 2011 09:41:43 Camaleón wrote: > >> Since a week (or so) ago, my ClamAV log is urging me to upgrade to the > >> lastest stable version available -as always- but I see no update in > >> volatile repo... is that expected to be done? :-? > > > > From what I understand, the clamav binaries are only updated in stable > > (even in stable/volatile or stable-updates) when a new version is needed > > in order to use the updated virus definitions, or for the normal stable > > update criteria. > > Uh? Is that true? I thought the whole volatile repo was also handling > "oldstable" packages? :-?
I wasn't clear. I mean that just because there is a new upstream version of ClamAV, that doesn't mean it will get included in volatile. It might be appropriate for volatile, but not all new upstream versions are. > > However clamav (and more and more software) starts getting noisy as soon > > as upstream provides a new version, for whatever reason. Even in A/V > > software, not every upgrade is appropriate for stable. > > Well, I don't read all and each of the ClamAV new released changelogs to > see what has been patched, but being an AV I'd expect a new version > corrects some severe bugs and not just "cosmetic" errors. While I don't think your expectation is well-founded, if it is the case that the new version corrects some severe bugs, I would expect it not only in lenny-volatile but also lenny-proposed-updates. Maybe not lenny-proposed- updates, but I think the RC-level bug fix policy in oldstable is roughly the same as stable. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. b...@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
