On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 08:51:00 +1200 Steve Wray <steve.w...@cwa.co.nz> wrote:
> This would be ok if the distros maintained the servers which their > distributed version of Clamav updated from. > They don't. The responsibility in this case is that of those who > maintain Clamav, not the distros. > I would suggest that distros may want to take note of this situation; > its perhaps not unreasonable for them to maintain eg their own Clamav > update servers. But the distro are the ones who gave you outdated unsupported software. Had they provided you with a newer package, you wouldn't have had this problem. Are you suggesting that if your distribution had packaged ClamAV 0.96 and your server(s) didn't break, that you would *still* be upset? Just on principle? I honestly doubt it for one simple reason: You don't read the announcement list, nor do you follow their twitter account, nor do you read sites like LWN, (all of which, among others, had announcements 6 months ago) so you would never have known.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Help us build a comprehensive ClamAV guide: visit http://wiki.clamav.net http://www.clamav.net/support/ml
