SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

February 2011

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
Re: SL 5.6 released?
From:
Larry Vaden <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Larry Vaden <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 9 Feb 2011 19:59:45 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (28 lines) 
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Ewan Mac Mahon <[log in to unmask]> 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

THANKS!

On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Chris Jones
<[log in to unmask]> 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

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?
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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2