FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 02-10-2011, 01:05 AM
Larry Vaden
 
Default 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@fnal.gov:

<quote>
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Ewan Mac Mahon <ewan@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@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
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 02-10-2011, 05:37 AM
Ned Slider
 
Default how will CentOS handle the perftools 1.7 vs. 1.6 issue?

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@fnal.gov:
>
> <quote>
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Ewan Mac Mahon<ewan@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@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.

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 02-10-2011, 09:53 AM
Johnny Hughes
 
Default how will CentOS handle the perftools 1.7 vs. 1.6 issue?

On 02/10/2011 12:37 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
> 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@fnal.gov:
>>
>> <quote>
>> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Ewan Mac Mahon<ewan@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@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.

This is correct, CentOS would add an updated package somewhere (our
people.centos.org site or the centos-testing repository would be the
likely places).

We want our release to be the same source code where ever possible ...
only changing things as required to meet trademark restrictions.

I can't speak to how SL will do it.



_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 02-10-2011, 10:42 AM
Kai Schaetzl
 
Default how will CentOS handle the perftools 1.7 vs. 1.6 issue?

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


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 02-10-2011, 01:59 PM
Ray Van Dolson
 
Default how will CentOS handle the perftools 1.7 vs. 1.6 issue?

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:42:48PM +0100, 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.

Personally, I have no problem with it. Cross-community communication
over potentially shared problems should be welcomed.

Larry was probably unaware the package wasn't in CentOS, and even so
our two communities have a lot in common.

Larry -- sounded like that package was in EPEL. You should still file
an issue in bugzilla.redhat.com. The patch to fix the issue appeared
to be small, so I would expect that the maintainer would be completely
willing to backport the fix.

Ray
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 02-10-2011, 02:01 PM
Lamar Owen
 
Default how will CentOS handle the perftools 1.7 vs. 1.6 issue?

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.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 02-10-2011, 04:31 PM
Kai Schaetzl
 
Default how will CentOS handle the perftools 1.7 vs. 1.6 issue?

> While google perftools is not a part of either SL or CentOS, it *is*
> in EPEL, and CentOS users can be users of EPEL

Then it's on-topic on the EPEL list, not here. e.g. ask there for an
updated version of the package.

This wasn't the first instance. This guy has recently started a habit of
copying mails (that are not his own it seems) that trip him off right to
this list. That is bad practice. I do not want to get more of this.

Kai


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 02-10-2011, 04:53 PM
Larry Vaden
 
Default how will CentOS handle the perftools 1.7 vs. 1.6 issue?

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Kai Schaetzl <maillists@conactive.com> wrote:
>> While google perftools is not a part of either SL or CentOS, it *is*
>> in EPEL, and CentOS users can be users of EPEL
>
> Then it's on-topic on the EPEL list, not here. e.g. ask there for an
> updated version of the package.
>
> This wasn't the first instance. This guy has recently started a habit of
> copying mails (that are not his own it seems) that trip him off right to
> this list. That is bad practice. I do not want to get more of this.

My effort was to understand the conditions under which CentOS and/or
SL would ever go to current edition for a particular component (e.g,
BIND) and I think I understand now and can resign from the list with
all due apologies to list members.

kind regards/ldv
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 02-10-2011, 04:55 PM
Ray Van Dolson
 
Default how will CentOS handle the perftools 1.7 vs. 1.6 issue?

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:53:52AM -0600, Larry Vaden wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Kai Schaetzl <maillists@conactive.com> wrote:
> >> While google perftools is not a part of either SL or CentOS, it *is*
> >> in EPEL, and CentOS users can be users of EPEL
> >
> > Then it's on-topic on the EPEL list, not here. e.g. ask there for an
> > updated version of the package.
> >
> > This wasn't the first instance. This guy has recently started a habit of
> > copying mails (that are not his own it seems) that trip him off right to
> > this list. That is bad practice. I do not want to get more of this.
>
> My effort was to understand the conditions under which CentOS and/or
> SL would ever go to current edition for a particular component (e.g,
> BIND) and I think I understand now and can resign from the list with
> all due apologies to list members.
>
> kind regards/ldv

Kai's opinions are not shared by many of us. You're welcome back any
time.

Thanks,
Ray
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 02-10-2011, 06:33 PM
Keith Keller
 
Default how will CentOS handle the perftools 1.7 vs. 1.6 issue?

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 04:53:09AM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
> This is correct, CentOS would add an updated package somewhere (our
> people.centos.org site or the centos-testing repository would be the
> likely places).
>
> We want our release to be the same source code where ever possible ...
> only changing things as required to meet trademark restrictions.

In general, is there a process for deciding whether a package is
qualified for inclusion in the centosplus repo? I imagine it's
something along the lines of "this package had better be well-built and
important enough to break 100% binary compatibility", but I can't
find anything specific in the docs. (I personally only use the
XFS-related packages out of centosplus, but I can imagine wanting
to watch it if other packages appear there that might be useful
or interesting.)

--keith


--
kkeller@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:03 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org