[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#1027463: transition: clamav



On Wednesday, January 4, 2023 2:27:46 PM EST Sebastian Ramacher wrote:
> Control: tags -1 confirmed
> 
> Hi Scott
> 
> On 2022-12-31 19:29:53 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > Package: release.debian.org
> > Severity: normal
> > User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> > Usertags: transition
> > X-Debbugs-Cc: pkg-clamav-devel.alioth-lists.debian.net
> > 
> > As discussed in a separate email to the release team list yesterday, we,
> > unfortunately have a need to do a late clamav transition.
> > 
> > The clamav project now maintains specified releases with long term
> > support.  Currently we have 0.103 in stable/testing/unstable.  We should
> > be able to maintain clamav for the expected life of bullseye with 0.103.
> > 
> > For bookworm we will need to transition to clamav 1.0/libclamav11 at
> > some point and we believe it's better to do it now that during the
> > freeze or even potentially after release.  The move from 0.103 to 1.0 is
> > more complicated that usual due to upstream switching from autorools to
> > CMake and the introduction of Rust code into libclamav.
> > 
> > The package is availalbe in experimental, but still needs some cleanup
> > before it's ready for release.  We will be working on this over then
> > next couple of days and anticipate being ready for the transition
> > mid-week.
> > 
> > There are three reverse build-depends for libclamav-dev:
> > 
> > * c-icap-modules
> > * cyrus-imapd
> > * pg-snakeoil
> > 
> > I've test built all three with the clamav 1.0 packages in experimental
> > with no issue.
> > 
> > Additionally, there is libclamunrar in non-free that will also need to
> > be updated.  The clamav team will address that after the transition is
> > done.
> 
> Please go ahead.
> 
> Cheers

libclamav11 is now available on all release archs, so I think we can do the 
binNMUs now.

Scott K

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply to: