should clamav-data package supersede clamav-db ?

Hi, I noticed that pup updates and yum updates were failing
to complete 
for the last 3 weeks or so. One of the packages was for
clamav: 
installed clamav-db requires clamav version that is
currently installed. 
I guessed this was a packaging error that would be solved in
due course.

What I realize now is that my clamav package is from
freshrpms or 
rpmforge. Here the virus-definitions were in clamav-db,
whereas in 
extras they are in clamav-data. So, while the EVR is higher
-2 to -1, 
this wont upgrade the freshrpms packages because of the name
change.

Perhaps changing the clamav-data package to obsolete
clamav-db would be 
the nicest way to solve this. And if forge/fresh continue to
package, it 
might be worth suggesting they do similar for their package
?

DaveT.

-- 
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-
list

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, David Timms wrote:
> Perhaps changing the clamav-data package to obsolete
clamav-db would be the 
> nicest way to solve this. And if forge/fresh continue
to package, it might be 
> worth suggesting they do similar for their package ?

  -1, Flamebait 

      Jima

-- 
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-
list

Jima wrote :

> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, David Timms wrote:
> > Perhaps changing the clamav-data package to
obsolete clamav-db would be the 
> > nicest way to solve this. And if forge/fresh
continue to package, it might be 
> > worth suggesting they do similar for their package
?
> 
>   -1, Flamebait 

Why? First of all, the package doesn't come from freshrpms,
but
rpmforge, as I've never packaged it on freshrpms 
Second, you should contact Dries and suggest :
1) To remove the rpmforge clamav packages for the Fedora
releases which
have them in Extras
2) To consider using the clamav-db name instead of
clamav-data

Then also poke the Extras clamav maintainer to have the
proper
"Obsoletes: clamav-db <= last-known-V-R" added
to the clamav-data
package.

Matthias

-- 
Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora Core release 6 (Zod) - Linux kernel
2.6.20-1.2933.fc6
Load : 3.34 6.37 4.87

-- 
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-
list

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Matthias Saou wrote:
> Jima wrote :
>>   -1, Flamebait 
>
> Why?

  Because anytime we get into a discussion involving
anything that could be 
construed as a turf war between Fedora and third-party
(wait, second 
party...I think I coined that catchphrase) repositories,
things tend to 
get ugly.

      Jima

-- 
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-
list

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, David Timms wrote:
>>> Jima wrote :
>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, David Timms wrote:
>>>>> Perhaps changing the clamav-data
package to obsolete clamav-db would be 
>>>>> the nicest way to solve this. And if
forge/fresh continue to package, it 
>>>>> might be worth suggesting they do
similar for their package ?
>>>>   -1, Flamebait 
> Jima: Can you estimate 'when' it's been discussed
before ?

  This specific issue?  I'm not sure it has.  I was
referring more to the 
act of starting a thread that pits Fedora against outside
repository 
maintainers.

>>> 2) To consider using the clamav-db name instead
of clamav-data
> Which name fits the guidelines ?  {-data is currently
in extras}

  Guidelines?  Third-party repositories don't have to follow
any guidelines 
besides their own (which is both good and bad).

>>> Then also poke the Extras clamav maintainer to
have the proper
>>> "Obsoletes: clamav-db <=
last-known-V-R" added to the clamav-data
>>> package.
> This will achieve what I though we would want in
fedora;, but would also be 
> susceptible to rpmforge releasing a later V or R, and
causing a change to the 
> rpmforge packages, wouldn't it ?

  This is the turf war angle I mentioned earlier.

>> I read several complaints on fedora-list about the
way clamav is packaged 
>> in Extras, I think that's why a lot of people use
the RPMs from other 
>> repos...
> I don't have time at the moment to scan the archives.
Can you remember if 
> these seemed like fixable issues while still fitting
the fedora packaging 
> guidelines ?

  It seems to me that issues with how a package is designed
should be 
brought up via Requests For Enhancement in Bugzilla, not as
complaints on 
a mailing list.  I think RFEs have a better chance of being
addressed.

      Jima

-- 
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-
list

>>>>> "MS" == Marc Schwartz
<marc_schwartzcomcast.net> writes:

MS> While there were some changes that needed to be made
in configs,
MS> etc, it wasn't tragic.

It's pretty damn tragic if your running installation happens
to break
because the maintainer happens to push an update on the
weekend you're
out of town.  You simply cannot require manual intervention
for a
simple update.  F7 can get the new version.

Really, Enrico's doing the proper thing here.  The only
complaint I'd
make at the moment is that he's left in the "Your
installation is
OUTDATED" message that I get in my logs every day.  But
unless there
are unpatched security issues in the stable release, I just
don't see
what the fuss is about.

 - J<

-- 
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-
list

On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 11:55 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III
wrote:
> >>>>> "MS" == Marc Schwartz
<marc_schwartzcomcast.net> writes:
> 
> MS> While there were some changes that needed to be
made in configs,
> MS> etc, it wasn't tragic.
> 
> It's pretty damn tragic if your running installation
happens to break
> because the maintainer happens to push an update on the
weekend you're
> out of town.  You simply cannot require manual
intervention for a
> simple update.  F7 can get the new version.
> 
> Really, Enrico's doing the proper thing here.  The only
complaint I'd
> make at the moment is that he's left in the "Your
installation is
> OUTDATED" message that I get in my logs every day.
 But unless there
> are unpatched security issues in the stable release, I
just don't see
> what the fuss is about.

Jason,

The issue is:

1. As far as I can see, unless you can point me to it, the
latest
version of clamav is not in any of the relevant repos
targeted for F7.

2. This means that you will have to deal with this clamav
upgrade post
the F7 upgrade and face the same issues that you would face
now on FC6
relative to config file breakage.

3. There are comments and pointers to scripts in the
Bugzilla report
that I referenced, by me and others, relative to at least
possible and
reasonable 'automated' upgrade processes during the RPM
installation
procedures. As far as I and others can tell, Enrico seems to
be
resistant to even exploring and testing these as possible
options.

4. Take note of this post by Luca Gibelli of ClamAV a month
ago,
relative to the burden being placed on their signature
update servers by
users of versions prior to 0.90.x:

  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.security
.virus.clamav.user/25389

There are compelling reasons to upgrade beyond security
patches and
related considerations.

Regards,

Marc


-- 
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-
list

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Marc Schwartz wrote:
> The issue is:
>
> 1. As far as I can see, unless you can point me to it,
the latest
> version of clamav is not in any of the relevant repos
targeted for F7.

  Huh?

fedora/extras/development/i386/clamav-0.90.1-2.fc7.i386.rpm
fedora/extras/development/i386/clamav-data-0.90.1-2.fc7.i386
.rpm
fedora/extras/development/i386/clamav-data-empty-0.90.1-2.fc
7.i386.rpm
fedora/extras/development/i386/clamav-devel-0.90.1-2.fc7.i38
6.rpm
fedora/extras/development/i386/clamav-filesystem-0.90.1-2.fc
7.i386.rpm
fedora/extras/development/i386/clamav-lib-0.90.1-2.fc7.i386.
rpm
fedora/extras/development/i386/clamav-milter-0.90.1-2.fc7.i3
86.rpm
fedora/extras/development/i386/clamav-milter-sysv-0.90.1-2.f
c7.i386.rpm
fedora/extras/development/i386/clamav-server-0.90.1-2.fc7.i3
86.rpm
fedora/extras/development/i386/clamav-server-sysv-0.90.1-2.f
c7.i386.rpm
fedora/extras/development/i386/clamav-update-0.90.1-2.fc7.i3
86.rpm

  Looks to me like 0.90.1 should be in F7.

> 3. There are comments and pointers to scripts in the
Bugzilla report
> that I referenced, by me and others, relative to at
least possible and
> reasonable 'automated' upgrade processes during the RPM
installation
> procedures. As far as I and others can tell, Enrico
seems to be
> resistant to even exploring and testing these as
possible options.

  While I may or may not agree with Enrico's positions on
workarounds 
(which I readily admit I haven't looked at), I do respect
his decision to 
hold off 0.90.1 until F7.  Major bumps (especially ones that
have serious 
potential to break installs) generally shouldn't happen
within a release.

      Jima

-- 
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-
list

>>>>> "MS" == Marc Schwartz
<marc_schwartzcomcast.net> writes:

MS> 1. As far as I can see, unless you can point me to
it, the latest
MS> version of clamav is not in any of the relevant repos
targeted for
MS> F7.

Currently in F7 is clamav-0.90.1-2.

 - J<

-- 
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-
list

On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 12:48 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III
wrote:
> >>>>> "MS" == Marc Schwartz
<marc_schwartzcomcast.net> writes:
> 
> MS> 1. As far as I can see, unless you can point me
to it, the latest
> MS> version of clamav is not in any of the relevant
repos targeted for
> MS> F7.
> 
> Currently in F7 is clamav-0.90.1-2.

Thanks to both Jason and Jima for the pointer.

I stand corrected on that issue.

Marc


-- 
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-listredhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-
list