Re: [Clamav-users] Old ClamAV workaround
Bart Silverstrim wrote: On Oct 24, 2004, at 3:29 PM, Mark Adams wrote: Matt wrote: What's the worst that can happen? It fails to compile, and you still need to find a packaged version. You'll be no worse off than you are now. The worst that can happen? I descend once again into dependency hell and spend hours loosing my mind over this. I totally alienate my sense of well being and take up arms on a shooting spree that threatens everyone in a 400 mile circle leaving my children without any parents. Fortunatley, that didn't happen. I snagged a copy of source and it compiled smoothly. It seems to be working just fine for now. Stupid question (I've got TONS of them :-) ... When you only install programs from source, how do you know when upgrading them that there aren't remnants of binaries or libraries scattered around the OS? I grew up having to use Windows, so please forgive the question; I had one too many instances of uninstallers getting rid of the program then having old DLL's and older registry entries left behind (and before that, old .ini files). So when using source compiles, I have this ingrained flinch towards the idea of just running a compile and installing the results then trying to do an upgrade if there's no version control, etc. built into it (which I suppose is why RPM and apt-get and all the other packagers are so popular...supposedly they help prevent conflicts from upgrades) -Bart checkinstall is what you need. ___ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
Re: [Clamav-users] Old ClamAV workaround
Bart Silverstrim wrote: On Oct 24, 2004, at 3:29 PM, Mark Adams wrote: Matt wrote: What's the worst that can happen? It fails to compile, and you still need to find a packaged version. You'll be no worse off than you are now. The worst that can happen? I descend once again into dependency hell and spend hours loosing my mind over this. I totally alienate my sense of well being and take up arms on a shooting spree that threatens everyone in a 400 mile circle leaving my children without any parents. Fortunatley, that didn't happen. I snagged a copy of source and it compiled smoothly. It seems to be working just fine for now. Stupid question (I've got TONS of them :-) ... When you only install programs from source, how do you know when upgrading them that there aren't remnants of binaries or libraries scattered around the OS? My process for installing a new version: Preserve the previous build for fall-back purposes 1. dl the source for the version of interst 2. read the dox for build changes 3. run a configure/make script (for repeatability - has my chosen options in it) 4. examine the new conf files for interesting entries 5. make backup copies of conf files from previous version 6. stop clamav procs 7. rm -f /usr/local/lib/*clam* (to remove old libraries) 8. make install 9. check again conf files - adjust as needed for new version 10. restart clamav processes If you run make -n install you will be shown what make would do in an install and where things will be put. This will tell you what you need to remove. dp ___ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
Re: [Clamav-users] Old ClamAV workaround
Daniel J McDonald wrote: On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 08:00 -0400, Bart Silverstrim wrote: Well designed programs have a "make uninstall" option. So, you would go back to the orignial source, run make uninstall, then make install on the new source. except 'make uninstall' seems to be deprecated on perl modules like MIME-tools, and doesn't actually work. -- _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/_/ _/ _/ _/ Bill Maidment Maidment Enterprises Pty Ltd Unless you are named "Alfred E. Newman", you may read only the "odd numbered words" (every other word beginning with the first) of the message above. If you have violated that, then you hereby owe the sender AU$10 for each even numbered word you have read. Adapted from "Stupid Email Disclaimers" (see http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/) ___ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
Re: [Clamav-users] Old ClamAV workaround
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004, Bart Silverstrim wrote: > When you only install programs from source, how do you know when upgrading > them that there aren't remnants of binaries or libraries scattered around the > OS? I grew up having to use Windows, so please forgive the question; I had > one too many instances of uninstallers getting rid of the program then having > old DLL's and older registry entries left behind (and before that, old .ini Unix libraries (usually) use a version number in the file name. In fact, you (usually) do keep the old versions on the system, so you can run binaries compiled against any version along the way. IE, right now in /usr/local/lib I have: -rw-r--r--1 root other 376294 Oct 17 21:01 libclamav.a -rwxr-xr-x1 root other 780 Oct 17 21:01 libclamav.la lrwxrwxrwx1 root other 18 Oct 17 21:01 libclamav.so -> libclamav.so.1.0.4 lrwxrwxrwx1 root other 18 Oct 17 21:01 libclamav.so.1 -> libclamav.so.1.0.4 -rwxr-xr-x1 root other 110673 Jun 17 2003 libclamav.so.1.0.2 -rwxr-xr-x1 root other 194626 Apr 1 2004 libclamav.so.1.0.3 -rwxr-xr-x1 root other 361866 Oct 17 21:01 libclamav.so.1.0.4 The symlinks tell you which is current, while the old versions let any binary compiled against an old version use the one it wants. == Chris Candreva -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- (914) 967-7816 WestNet Internet Services of Westchester http://www.westnet.com/ ___ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
Re: [Clamav-users] Old ClamAV workaround
On Mon, 2004-10-25 at 08:00 -0400, Bart Silverstrim wrote: > On Oct 24, 2004, at 3:29 PM, Mark Adams wrote: > When you only install programs from source, how do you know when > upgrading them that there aren't remnants of binaries or libraries > scattered around the OS? Well designed programs have a "make uninstall" option. So, you would go back to the orignial source, run make uninstall, then make install on the new source. > So when using > source compiles, I have this ingrained flinch towards the idea of just > running a compile and installing the results then trying to do an > upgrade if there's no version control, etc. built into it (which I > suppose is why RPM and apt-get and all the other packagers are so > popular...supposedly they help prevent conflicts from upgrades) Right, which is why I've taken to building SRPMs for every package I install if there is no pre-built one. it's not terribly difficult, just time consuming. For Mandrake users, you can usually snag the SRPM for a recent version from cooker or plf and update the source for a new version in just a couple of minutes. For clam 0.80 there were extensive changes to the config files, so it took me a good week to get all of the config patches the way I wanted them. ___ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
Re: [Clamav-users] Old ClamAV workaround
On Oct 24, 2004, at 3:29 PM, Mark Adams wrote: Matt wrote: What's the worst that can happen? It fails to compile, and you still need to find a packaged version. You'll be no worse off than you are now. The worst that can happen? I descend once again into dependency hell and spend hours loosing my mind over this. I totally alienate my sense of well being and take up arms on a shooting spree that threatens everyone in a 400 mile circle leaving my children without any parents. Fortunatley, that didn't happen. I snagged a copy of source and it compiled smoothly. It seems to be working just fine for now. Stupid question (I've got TONS of them :-) ... When you only install programs from source, how do you know when upgrading them that there aren't remnants of binaries or libraries scattered around the OS? I grew up having to use Windows, so please forgive the question; I had one too many instances of uninstallers getting rid of the program then having old DLL's and older registry entries left behind (and before that, old .ini files). So when using source compiles, I have this ingrained flinch towards the idea of just running a compile and installing the results then trying to do an upgrade if there's no version control, etc. built into it (which I suppose is why RPM and apt-get and all the other packagers are so popular...supposedly they help prevent conflicts from upgrades) -Bart ___ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
Re: [Clamav-users] Old ClamAV workaround
Matt wrote: What's the worst that can happen? It fails to compile, and you still need to find a packaged version. You'll be no worse off than you are now. The worst that can happen? I descend once again into dependency hell and spend hours loosing my mind over this. I totally alienate my sense of well being and take up arms on a shooting spree that threatens everyone in a 400 mile circle leaving my children without any parents. Fortunatley, that didn't happen. I snagged a copy of source and it compiled smoothly. It seems to be working just fine for now. Now, back to Jacksonville v. Indianapolis -- Mark E. Adams http://adamslan.shyper.com Random Musing: The lion and the calf shall lie down together but the calf won't get much sleep. -- Woody Allen ___ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
Re: [Clamav-users] Old ClamAV workaround
Dennis Peterson wrote: > >> Use the source Luke. > > > > > > I've got a bad feeling about this. > > > > If you have a reasonably well configured system (for dev work - gcc, > etc) it will compile and install quickly. Read the dox - clamav.conf is > gone, replace by clamd.conf. Freshclam has a new DNS method. Read the > archives here about gmp, curl, etc - there are new features you may want > to try. What's the worst that can happen? It fails to compile, and you still need to find a packaged version. You'll be no worse off than you are now. Matt ___ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
Re: [Clamav-users] Old ClamAV workaround
Mark Adams wrote: Niek wrote: On 10/24/2004 6:13 PM +0200, Mark Adams wrote: Okay, it appears the Mandrake Linux update system hasn't caught up with developers yet. Urpmi offers only ver. 061. I upgraded from 0.61, when notified a few days ago that it was outdated, to the packages in "clamav-0.80-1mdk.1bcr.i586.rpm" from ftp.neocat.org. I had to force the installation through dependency hell and it produced a relocation error whenever I tried to run clamscan, freshclam or anything else clamav related. Much futsing around with it later, I uninstalled ver. 08 and reinstalled 0.61. The problem with this is that whenever Freshclam runs I get failures to find md5sum on the virus definition files. My most recent attempt yielded this: [snip] Use the source Luke. I've got a bad feeling about this. If you have a reasonably well configured system (for dev work - gcc, etc) it will compile and install quickly. Read the dox - clamav.conf is gone, replace by clamd.conf. Freshclam has a new DNS method. Read the archives here about gmp, curl, etc - there are new features you may want to try. dp ___ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
Re: [Clamav-users] Old ClamAV workaround
Niek wrote: On 10/24/2004 6:13 PM +0200, Mark Adams wrote: Okay, it appears the Mandrake Linux update system hasn't caught up with developers yet. Urpmi offers only ver. 061. I upgraded from 0.61, when notified a few days ago that it was outdated, to the packages in "clamav-0.80-1mdk.1bcr.i586.rpm" from ftp.neocat.org. I had to force the installation through dependency hell and it produced a relocation error whenever I tried to run clamscan, freshclam or anything else clamav related. Much futsing around with it later, I uninstalled ver. 08 and reinstalled 0.61. The problem with this is that whenever Freshclam runs I get failures to find md5sum on the virus definition files. My most recent attempt yielded this: [snip] Use the source Luke. I've got a bad feeling about this. -- Mark E. Adams http://adamslan.shyper.com Random Musing: "But Huey, you PROMISED!" "Tell 'em I lied." ___ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
Re: [Clamav-users] Old ClamAV workaround
On 10/24/2004 6:13 PM +0200, Mark Adams wrote: Okay, it appears the Mandrake Linux update system hasn't caught up with developers yet. Urpmi offers only ver. 061. I upgraded from 0.61, when notified a few days ago that it was outdated, to the packages in "clamav-0.80-1mdk.1bcr.i586.rpm" from ftp.neocat.org. I had to force the installation through dependency hell and it produced a relocation error whenever I tried to run clamscan, freshclam or anything else clamav related. Much futsing around with it later, I uninstalled ver. 08 and reinstalled 0.61. The problem with this is that whenever Freshclam runs I get failures to find md5sum on the virus definition files. My most recent attempt yielded this: [snip] Use the source Luke. Regards, Niek -- Use plain text: http://www.geoapps.com/nomime.shtml Learn to quote:http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote2.html Avoid disclaimers: http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers ___ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
Re: [Clamav-users] Old ClamAV workaround
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 10:13:41 -0600 Mark Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Okay, it appears the Mandrake Linux update system hasn't caught up > with > developers yet. Urpmi offers only ver. 061. I upgraded from 0.61, > when > notified a few days ago that it was outdated, to the packages in > "clamav-0.80-1mdk.1bcr.i586.rpm" from ftp.neocat.org. I had to force > the installation through dependency hell and it produced a relocation > error whenever I tried to run clamscan, freshclam or anything else > clamav related. > > Much futsing around with it later, I uninstalled ver. 08 and > reinstalled > 0.61. The problem with this is that whenever Freshclam runs I get 0.61 is no longer usable -- oo. Tomasz Kojm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (\/)\. http://www.ClamAV.net/gpg/tkojm.gpg \..._ 0DCA5A08407D5288279DB43454822DC8985A444B //\ /\ Sun Oct 24 18:17:34 CEST 2004 pgp3SIEUJk0kH.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
[Clamav-users] Old ClamAV workaround
Okay, it appears the Mandrake Linux update system hasn't caught up with developers yet. Urpmi offers only ver. 061. I upgraded from 0.61, when notified a few days ago that it was outdated, to the packages in "clamav-0.80-1mdk.1bcr.i586.rpm" from ftp.neocat.org. I had to force the installation through dependency hell and it produced a relocation error whenever I tried to run clamscan, freshclam or anything else clamav related. Much futsing around with it later, I uninstalled ver. 08 and reinstalled 0.61. The problem with this is that whenever Freshclam runs I get failures to find md5sum on the virus definition files. My most recent attempt yielded this: = Reading md5 sum (viruses.md5): ERROR: md5 sum not found on remote server ERROR: Can't get viruses.md5 sum from clamav.linux-sxs.org Checking for a new database - started at Sun Oct 24 09:51:47 2004 Connected to clamav.rulez.pl. Reading md5 sum (viruses.md5): OK Reading md5 sum (viruses2.md5): OK Downloading viruses.db . . . done Downloading viruses.db2 ... done ERROR: The checksum of viruses.db2 database isn't ok. Please check it yourself or try again. Checking for a new database - started at Sun Oct 24 09:52:28 2004 Connected to clamav.org. Reading md5 sum (viruses.md5): ERROR: md5 sum not found on remote server ERROR: Can't get viruses.md5 sum from clamav.org It appears that the database files came down okay, but I'm not going to check the md5sums manually; this is running on my SAMBA shares and I have a WinXP machine and a Win2K downstream that are also scanning for virii. Questions are: is this (more or less) reliable until Mandrake rpm's become available? Is anyone aware of an rpm for Mandrake that is likely to work? Yes, I know I could probably pick up a .src file and compile it, but I'd like to avoid that if possible. Again, this is not mission critical (home LAN) and there seems to be enough redundancy that we haven't had any viral infections of the SAMBA shares. Thanks. -- Mark E. Adams http://adamslan.shyper.com Random Musing: Parkinson's Fifth Law: If there is a way to delay in important decision, the good bureaucracy, public or private, will find it. ___ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
