[CentOS-devel] slow Perl on CentOS 5

[John Summerfield]

Notes to RHEL5 users.
I'm sending this to the RHEL5 list because it affects RHEL5 users. The 
full discussion can be read from the archive for centos-devel at centos.org.

RH has promised its fix in RHEL5U3. CentOS has it now, the remaining 
discussion is how it's distributed. If you need it now, use the CentOS5 
rpm and/or lean on RH.

Note to RHEL5 on Linux-390.
The CentOS fixed rpm needs to be built for Zeds, but (probably) the 
CentOS src.rpm will build fine.

Note to SLES10 users on  linux-390
I don't have a clue whether this applies to you, it could. Code to test 
it can be found in the archive I mentioned above.

Marcus Moeller wrote:
> Dear John.
> 
> 
>> _I_ would prefer to pick it up automatically, without having to make special
>> configuration changes or use unusual commandline arguments. I'm looking for
>> someone to explain why it should not be so, and "binary compatibility" isn't
>> it. Nor does the overview at www.centos.org explain why not.
> 
> It's not only about binary compatibility (of course this patch might
> not break with it). It's more about dividing from upstream.

That's not, afaics, a stated objective. There is a downside (prospective 
problems for users) in not fixing the problem for all C5 users.

What disadvantage is there to CentOS supplying its fix through the 
regular updates repo? MM, like me, doesn't see a problem with binary 
compatibility. The fix is available and implemented and (to some extent) 
tested. Apparently, RH has promised to fix it properly at some point in 
the future and the RH fix will automatically supersede the C fix.

> 
> As mentioned before RH will push out a fix sooner or later. Those
> systems that are affected (which is non of mine, at least) may be
> patched using testing or even fasttrack repo.

As I've said before, I don't think most people would know, unless they 
run over the problem in their own code, and if they do encounter it and 
use Google as I did, the fix they are more likely to find is "build your 
own perl."

I value compatibility with RH even though, in practice, it's probably 
not going to affect me directly - I'm unlikely to use commercial 
certified software - but I don't see a reason for retaining RH bugs just 
for compatibility.


Note, my C5 system doesn't even have a definition of a testing or 
fasttrack repo.



-- 

Cheers
John

-- spambait
1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu  Z1aaaaaaa at coco.merseine.nu
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

You cannot reply off-list:-)