In order to avoid a cross post, the following background quote is from
SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@xxxxxxxx:
<quote>
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Ewan Mac Mahon <ewan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I'm a little bit hazy on the details, but there are some slides from the
> meeting here[1]:
> http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?contribId=8&sessionId=1&resId=1&materialId=slides&confId=106641
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Chris Jones
<christopher.rob.jones@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I would say a bug in tcmalloc, not SL or RHEL. See for instance
>
> <http://code.google.com/p/google-perftools/issues/detail?id=305>
>
> The fix is to move to google perftools 1.7
</quote>
Because of a problem with not running the current BIND release a
couple of weeks ago, I would like to ask:
a) is RedHat likely to choose to backport the fix to 1.6 or will it
adopt 1.7 or leave as is until 5.7 or later as it has done with BIND?
b) will Centos and/or SL follow RH exactly or will their approaches differ?
IOW, how far does the "binary compatiblity" policy extend?
kind regards/ldv
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
