** Changed in: clamav-data (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Fix Released
--
[FFe] General FF exception for clamav-data for hardy
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/191529
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs m
blanket exception would be fine by me, too.
--
[FFe] General FF exception for clamav-data for hardy
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/191529
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubu
Marking approved based on upchecks from sistpoty and myself.
** Changed in: clamav-data (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Confirmed
--
[FFe] General FF exception for clamav-data for hardy
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/191529
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bu
We've done a blanket exception for this in the past and I think it was
just fine. We should do it again here too. Actually I think post-
release updates would be more suited to backports, but we should still
release with the latest we can.
--
[FFe] General FF exception for clamav-data for hardy
One can of course only sync once short before final freeze. But I don't
know when the next package get uploaded and given that currently the
package gets uploaded once monthly, I only expect 2 or 3 syncs till
then. Filing requests for an FF exception every time isn't much work, as
the bug looks alw
Whats the point of 1) if we stop anyhow updating the package once hardy is
released?
IMHO it would make more sense to go for 1) if we keep doing it after release
too.
If the purpose is to release hardy with the latest possible clamav-data
package, than why not just a single exception for the lat
