On 21.04.2010 17:50, Christopher X. Candreva wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, lists wrote:
>> Doesn't change a thing. If you threaten me with a course of action, if I
>> fail to do something that is blackmail. It's nothing else. It does not
>> matter if the product is free.
>
> Oh come on. If I tell
On 21.04.2010 22:56, Eric Rostetter wrote:
>> If they want to stop supporting it with updates, that's fine and it
>> still leaves me in control of what I run and when I update it.
>
> True. And a perfectly legitimate stance to hold. But that doesn't mean
> sourcefire/clamav has to respect that s
On 22.04.2010 06:44, Conrad Zane (Via Webmail) wrote:
> I can't believe this thread.
> This is like biting the hand that feeds.
> I upgrade Clam every time there's a new release. Across 20+ servers.
> Maybe the guys who are complaining should get into this habit too.
You are missing the point. I
On 22.04.2010 06:20, Dennis Peterson wrote:
> Suggest at least one way to inform all the users successfully that
> obsolete software is going to die soon - and don't let it slip past you
> in your solution that the ClamAV people have know way of knowing who
> they need to inform. And recall too, th
the configure script. I believe
clamav is shipping llvm-2.8. Upstream seems to be at llvm-3.2. Are
there any compatibility tests being made? Does clamav have a version
restriction regarding the llvm library it uses?
Thanks.
--
Eray Aslan
___
Help us
