[CentOS] how will CentOS handle the perftools 1.7 vs. 1.6 issue?

Larry Vaden

vaden at texoma.net
Thu Feb 10 02:05:25 UTC 2011


In order to avoid a cross post, the following background quote is from
SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS at fnal.gov:

<quote>
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Ewan Mac Mahon <ewan at macmahon.me.uk> 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 at cern.ch> 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



More information about the CentOS mailing list