memory could be checked at gallery set-up time (or
even in postinst), and this could avoid users a lot of hassle when
upgrading with moderately big albums.
Thank you very much.
--
Antonio Fiol
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500
stion: Refactor the graphical part (using lots of libs) out from
the waiting process.
I do not know if that is feasible, but if possible it would be nice.
Yours,
Antonio Fiol
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architect
virus will not be
found.
IMO, the scanner should detect this as an exceptional situation, and
react by saying:
stream: ERROR:Size-limit-exceeded FOUND
Or any other informative string.
The bug is not specific to Debian.
Yours sincerely,
Antonio Fiol
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
, but not on the stable release.
Yours sincerely,
Antonio Fiol
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.8
Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15)
Versions o
Package: clamav-daemon
Version: 0.80-7
Followup-For: Bug #290248
The following is a patch for this bug.
Possibly there are more elegant solutions, but this works.
Yours,
Antonio Fiol
--- clamav-0.80/clamd/scanner.c 2004-10-03 16:58:31.0 +0200
+++ clamav-0.80-new/clamd/scanner.c
further.
Yours,
Antonio Fiol
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
APT prefers unstable
APT policy: (500, 'unstable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.8
Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15)
Versions of packages dvbackup depends on:
nce v129 (which I never
had) a warning is printed about that, and I looked for it, and it is
actually present. Does this mean that my Debian packaged kernel is
somehow obsolete? This is possible, as it appears like there is a new
kernel package available. But if this is the problem, a dependency is
. Anyway, I
do not use those devices anymore.
Wondering if the solution would be that simple... What would happen if a
new rule had already been generated, and it is not removed as I did
myself? Which one would get matched? The old one or the new one?
Kind regards,
--
Antonio Fiol
Marco
not tested).
Yours sincerely,
--
Antonio Fiol
-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.6.15-1-686-smp (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (charmap=ISO-8859-15)
S
Package: gnome-icon-theme
Version: 2.20.0-1
Severity: normal
The icon for emblem "Special" was present in 2.14 and is not present in
2.20.
This makes all files having that emblem selected to lose -at least
visually- that information.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: lenny/sid
APT pre
Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Antonio Fiol said:
I am using clamd in STREAM mode in every case.
I have found a way of fooling the scanner to give a false
negative:
If the user sends a BIG file (bigger than the limit) with a virus near
the end (outside the limit), it will get
"segmentation fault"...
Using rsbepC gives very similar results, with different counts of
uncorrectable blocks.
But... Shouldn't a single checksum error be very easily correctable?
Thank you very much.
Antonio Fiol
PS: ~/dvbackup-0.0.4rj1/ is the directory where I ...
apt-get sourc
12 matches
Mail list logo
