On 02/10/2011 02:59 AM, Larry Vaden wrote:
> 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?

google-perftools comes from epel, not rhel. What the epel 
google-perftools maintainer will do is not easy to judge. I don't know 
how to interpret https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=675376.

But since this is epel and not rhel, I see no relation to the 5.7 
release. I would expect that epel maintainers react to this 
incompatibility between google-perftools and the current rhel release.

But then again i have not found an epel bugzilla entry that explicitly 
mentions the problem.

Matthias

> 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