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