On Mar 26, 2008, at 8:59 AM, Henrik K wrote: > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 08:46:31AM -0700, Dennis Peterson wrote: >>> >>> Until today you made no mention of static linking in this thread, if >>> you had you may have had different answers ;) >> >> The question was all about linking and can have no other subtext, >> premise, or context, and was based on information I saw on the >> website. That site shows only libclamav in the diagram. Even if it >> had >> shown usage with clamd the question is still valid, and one a >> programmer should understand. >> >> Now I'm so damned curious I've downloaded it and created a Linux >> sandbox to try it out on. > > It works great on Solaris too. Even better, since it doesn't have > problems > with mandatory locking on tmpfs. > > I don't know if static linking will bring any benefits (or that it > works > with ClamAV, never tried). You might as well package the correct > dynamic > libraries together with HAVP, if you want easy packages. ClamAV API > is not > that stable, but only major versions (0.92->0.93) are supposed > change the > library version or functionality. So recompiling is not needed very > often. >
What I was trying to do was better manage upgrades. It is a trivial thing to rebuild clamav so far as scheduling is concerned but it is a bigger deal to take down a proxy. Bigger problem yet (schedule wise) is to take down both the AV tool and the proxy. This is one thing that chafes me when I need to upgrade certain critical libraries such as openssl, zlib, and a few others. If the libraries are static this can be done at a more leisurely pace. The product did build fine but depends on pre-built ClamAV binaries - that is to say it does not build against ClamAV source files. And that is not uncommon. So I've answered my question and I thank you for your contribution to the open source community. dp _______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://lurker.clamav.net/list/clamav-users.html
