Re: clamav 0.96.2
Kim Bisgaard <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.redhat.rpm.atrpms.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi again,
With the before mentioned patch it works fine here!
Regards,
Kim
Here are my changes to the spec-file:
--- /data/downloads/clamav.spec 2010-08-13 09:08:17.000000000 +0200
+++ /home/kim/rpm/SPECS/clamav.spec 2010-08-18 19:36:39.000000000 +0200
@@ -16,12 +16,14 @@
Patch0: clamav-0.96-config.patch
Patch1: clamav-0.94-freshclamexample.patch
#Patch2: clamav-0.95.3-sysconf.patch
+Patch3: clamav-0.96.2-selinux.patch
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root
#BuildRequires: autoconf, automake, libtool, file
BuildRequires: gcc-c++
BuildRequires: zlib-devel
BuildRequires: bzip2-devel, gmp-devel >= 3
BuildRequires: sendmail-devel
+BuildRequires: sendmail-milter
BuildRequires: curl-devel >= 7.10.0
BuildRequires: tcp_wrappers
BuildRequires: check-devel
@@ -72,6 +74,7 @@
%patch0 -p1 -b .config
%patch1 -p1 -b .noexample
#patch2 -p1 -b .sysconf
+%patch3 -p1 -b .selinux
%build
%configure \
@@ -180,6 +183,9 @@
%changelog
+* Fri Aug 13 2010 Kim Bisgaard <[email protected]> - 1:0.96.2-51
+- Update to 0.96.2
+
* Fri May 21 2010 Axel Thimm <[email protected]> - 1:0.96.1-50
- Update to 0.96.1.
On 18-08-2010 17:26, Axel Thimm wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 11:41 +0200, Kim Bisgaard wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have tried to build (change the spec to above version) the newly
>> released clamav-0.96.2. It builds ok once one adds 'BuildRequires:
>> sendmail-milter', *BUT* here it core dumps once I try to run it.
>>
>> I have tried to get the debug-symbols, and starting clamd in gdb but
>> when started in debugger it does not core dump :-( could be a selinux
>> thing - but I have not found any AVC's that makes the core dump go away.
>>
>> This is f13 and i686.
>>
>> I advice to hold off the update until a patch shows up.
>
> Thanks for the heads-up. I did build it, but I placed it under bleeding:
>
> http://packages.atrpms.net/name/clamav/
>
> Can you check whether this build exhibits the same issues like you
> describe above? Thanks!