On 4/16/2010 7:08 PM, Giampaolo Tomassoni wrote:
This is not a matter of missing upgrades. This is a matter of
proactively
breaking running systems.
Exactly. They proactively broke the scanner so people would know why
it
broke, rather than letting it die with nothing more than an obscure
malformatted hexstring error.
Wasn't it better to simply let these system go the way they were used to?
What's the difference from the clamav standpoint?
The ClamAV developers want to continue on with things they way they are
used to. They don't want to overhaul their update system just so they
can continue to support a version of the software which is rapidly
becoming less usable.
You proposed that the change the way that 0.96 updates. Fine, that
could have been done. But what about 0.95? Which is arguably the most
deployed version at this moment. It was first released on 2009-03-23,
and the last update was made 2009-10-28. It properly handles
incremental updates of large signatures, and will continue to need new
signatures for a while longer. 0.96 was just released on 2010-03-31.
There's no way to stop updates for 0.94 and below, while still providing
updates for the heavily used 0.95, even if changes were made for 0.96.
--
Chris
_______________________________________________
Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net
http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
