CentOS - Feb 2011 - how will CentOS handle the perftools 1.7 vs. 1.6 issue?

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

On 10/02/11 02:05, Larry Vaden wrote:
> 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?
>
Bug for bug - if the bug is in RHEL-5.6 then it will be in CentOS too.

If it's important to you, file a bug upstream with Red Hat and get it 
fixed. The fix will naturally flow back downstream to CentOS.

Of course CentOS does have the freedom to do things differently to Red 
Hat if they want to, but if they do generally it will be outside of the 
main base/updates) repositories.

Larry, could you please stop spamming this list with problems you see on 
the SL list? Thanks. This package isn't even part of CentOS.

Kai

On Thursday, February 10, 2011 06:42:48 am Kai Schaetzl
wrote:
> Larry, could you please stop spamming this list with problems you see on 
> the SL list? Thanks. This package isn't even part of CentOS.
While google perftools is not a part of either SL or CentOS, it *is* in EPEL,
and CentOS users can be users of EPEL; thus it's on-topic for this list,
unless it needs to be kept on an EPEL list.

I personally would rather the quick report show up here than to have to
subscribe to yet another mailing list.