From rom at twister.dyndns.org Thu Jun 4 23:24:12 2015 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3164309147439020371==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Fred Wittekind To: epel-devel at lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: EPEL 5 clamav update Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 12:41:19 -0500 Message-ID: <4D3F0B3F.3040308@twister.dyndns.org> --===============3164309147439020371== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Are there any plans to to update clamav to 0.96.x in EPEL 5? Are there any technical or policy issues holding this up? There is an bugzilla entry for it here (kinda old): https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3D579370 Thanks in advance Fred Wittekind --===============3164309147439020371==-- From rom at twister.dyndns.org Thu Jun 4 23:24:13 2015 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1975809794444532199==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Fred Wittekind To: epel-devel at lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: EPEL 5 clamav update Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 09:55:42 -0500 Message-ID: <4D4035EE.1070307@twister.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: 4D3F0B3F.3040308@twister.dyndns.org --===============1975809794444532199== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------010002020006000007050201 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 1/25/2011 12:41 PM, Fred Wittekind wrote: > Are there any plans to to update clamav to 0.96.x in EPEL 5? Are there > any technical or policy issues holding this up? > > There is an bugzilla entry for it here (kinda old): > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3D579370 > > Does this have something to do with it? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3D573191 --------------010002020006000007050201 Content-Type: text/html; charset=3DISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 1/25/2011 12:41 PM, Fred Wittekind wrote:

Are there any plans to to update clamav to 0.96.x in E=
PEL 5?  Are there
any technical or policy issues holding this up?

There is an bugzilla entry for it here (kinda old):
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3D579370<=
/a>

Does this have something to do with it?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id= =3D573191
--------------010002020006000007050201-- --===============1975809794444532199== Content-Type: multipart/alternative MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="attachment.bin" VGhpcyBpcyBhIG11bHRpLXBhcnQgbWVzc2FnZSBpbiBNSU1FIGZvcm1hdC4KLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0t LS0wMTAwMDIwMjAwMDYwMDAwMDcwNTAyMDEKQ29udGVudC1UeXBlOiB0ZXh0L3BsYWluOyBjaGFy c2V0PUlTTy04ODU5LTEKQ29udGVudC1UcmFuc2Zlci1FbmNvZGluZzogN2JpdAoKT24gMS8yNS8y MDExIDEyOjQxIFBNLCBGcmVkIFdpdHRla2luZCB3cm90ZToKPiBBcmUgdGhlcmUgYW55IHBsYW5z IHRvIHRvIHVwZGF0ZSBjbGFtYXYgdG8gMC45Ni54IGluIEVQRUwgNT8gIEFyZSB0aGVyZQo+IGFu eSB0ZWNobmljYWwgb3IgcG9saWN5IGlzc3VlcyBob2xkaW5nIHRoaXMgdXA/Cj4KPiBUaGVyZSBp cyBhbiBidWd6aWxsYSBlbnRyeSBmb3IgaXQgaGVyZSAoa2luZGEgb2xkKToKPiBodHRwczovL2J1 Z3ppbGxhLnJlZGhhdC5jb20vc2hvd19idWcuY2dpP2lkPTU3OTM3MAo+Cj4KRG9lcyB0aGlzIGhh dmUgc29tZXRoaW5nIHRvIGRvIHdpdGggaXQ/Cmh0dHBzOi8vYnVnemlsbGEucmVkaGF0LmNvbS9z aG93X2J1Zy5jZ2k/aWQ9NTczMTkxCgotLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLTAxMDAwMjAyMDAwNjAwMDAwNzA1 MDIwMQpDb250ZW50LVR5cGU6IHRleHQvaHRtbDsgY2hhcnNldD1JU08tODg1OS0xCkNvbnRlbnQt VHJhbnNmZXItRW5jb2Rpbmc6IDdiaXQKCjwhRE9DVFlQRSBIVE1MIFBVQkxJQyAiLS8vVzNDLy9E VEQgSFRNTCA0LjAxIFRyYW5zaXRpb25hbC8vRU4iPgo8aHRtbD4KICA8aGVhZD4KICAgIDxtZXRh IGNvbnRlbnQ9InRleHQvaHRtbDsgY2hhcnNldD1JU08tODg1OS0xIgogICAgICBodHRwLWVxdWl2 PSJDb250ZW50LVR5cGUiPgogICAgPHRpdGxlPjwvdGl0bGU+CiAgPC9oZWFkPgogIDxib2R5IHRl eHQ9IiMwMDAwMDAiIGJnY29sb3I9IiNmZmZmZmYiPgogICAgT24gMS8yNS8yMDExIDEyOjQxIFBN LCBGcmVkIFdpdHRla2luZCB3cm90ZToKICAgIDxibG9ja3F1b3RlIGNpdGU9Im1pZDo0RDNGMEIz Ri4zMDQwMzA4QHR3aXN0ZXIuZHluZG5zLm9yZyIKICAgICAgdHlwZT0iY2l0ZSI+CiAgICAgIDxw cmUgd3JhcD0iIj5BcmUgdGhlcmUgYW55IHBsYW5zIHRvIHRvIHVwZGF0ZSBjbGFtYXYgdG8gMC45 Ni54IGluIEVQRUwgNT8gIEFyZSB0aGVyZQphbnkgdGVjaG5pY2FsIG9yIHBvbGljeSBpc3N1ZXMg aG9sZGluZyB0aGlzIHVwPwoKVGhlcmUgaXMgYW4gYnVnemlsbGEgZW50cnkgZm9yIGl0IGhlcmUg KGtpbmRhIG9sZCk6CjxhIGNsYXNzPSJtb3otdHh0LWxpbmstZnJlZXRleHQiIGhyZWY9Imh0dHBz Oi8vYnVnemlsbGEucmVkaGF0LmNvbS9zaG93X2J1Zy5jZ2k/aWQ9NTc5MzcwIj5odHRwczovL2J1 Z3ppbGxhLnJlZGhhdC5jb20vc2hvd19idWcuY2dpP2lkPTU3OTM3MDwvYT4KCgo8L3ByZT4KICAg IDwvYmxvY2txdW90ZT4KICAgIDxmb250IHNpemU9Ii0xIj48Zm9udCBmYWNlPSJBcmlhbCI+RG9l cyB0aGlzIGhhdmUgc29tZXRoaW5nIHRvIGRvCiAgICAgICAgd2l0aCBpdD88YnI+CiAgICAgICAg PGEgY2xhc3M9Im1vei10eHQtbGluay1mcmVldGV4dCIgaHJlZj0iaHR0cHM6Ly9idWd6aWxsYS5y ZWRoYXQuY29tL3Nob3dfYnVnLmNnaT9pZD01NzMxOTEiPmh0dHBzOi8vYnVnemlsbGEucmVkaGF0 LmNvbS9zaG93X2J1Zy5jZ2k/aWQ9NTczMTkxPC9hPjxicj4KICAgICAgPC9mb250PjwvZm9udD4K ICA8L2JvZHk+CjwvaHRtbD4KCi0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tMDEwMDAyMDIwMDA2MDAwMDA3MDUwMjAx LS0KCg== --===============1975809794444532199==-- From smooge at gmail.com Thu Jun 4 23:24:13 2015 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4691902998281914426==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Stephen John Smoogen To: epel-devel at lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: EPEL 5 clamav update Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 16:50:13 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: 4D4035EE.1070307@twister.dyndns.org --===============4691902998281914426== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 07:55, Fred Wittekind wr= ote: > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > --------------010002020006000007050201 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1 > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > On 1/25/2011 12:41 PM, Fred Wittekind wrote: >> Are there any plans to to update clamav to 0.96.x in EPEL 5? =C2=A0Are t= here >> any technical or policy issues holding this up? >> >> There is an bugzilla entry for it here (kinda old): >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3D579370 >> >> > Does this have something to do with it? > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3D573191 I think there are multiple reasons why it hasn't been updated, but not sure what they are these days. I am cc'ing the maintainer to see if we can work out a plan forward on this. -- = Stephen J Smoogen. "The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance." Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University. "Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle." -- Ian MacLaren --===============4691902998281914426==-- From rom at twister.dyndns.org Thu Jun 4 23:24:13 2015 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1708840329964326155==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Fred Wittekind To: epel-devel at lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: EPEL 5 clamav update Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 20:32:36 -0500 Message-ID: <4D40CB34.3070702@twister.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: AANLkTi=xoRHo3vpgpLvNB5fdrXOWXptLr82PVe6pogah@mail.gmail.com --===============1708840329964326155== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 01/26/2011 06:50 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 07:55, Fred Wittekind = wrote: >> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. >> --------------010002020006000007050201 >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3DISO-8859-1 >> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >> >> On 1/25/2011 12:41 PM, Fred Wittekind wrote: >>> Are there any plans to to update clamav to 0.96.x in EPEL 5? Are there >>> any technical or policy issues holding this up? >>> >>> There is an bugzilla entry for it here (kinda old): >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3D579370 >>> >>> >> Does this have something to do with it? >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3D573191 > I think there are multiple reasons why it hasn't been updated, but not > sure what they are these days. I am cc'ing the maintainer to see if we > can work out a plan forward on this. > > > I built a package on my own today so I could update the machines I needed to. It's a copy of the Fedora package with some minor changes to the spec file. I'll share the updates if that will help. I would rather the updates come from EPEL, than maintaining it on my own. Had a few problems with some of the macros (build sys difference I think), most of the changes I had to make where pretty basic though. It already had a flag for building without upstart support, but didn't have the if/endif blocks in all the right places to make building without upstart actually work, so fixed that. Also built with the bytecode flag set to off (so that ClamAV gets built without llvm support), the bytecode interpreter mode still works, but doesn't throw the SELinux error on startup. --===============1708840329964326155==--