Notes to RHEL5 users.
I'm sending this to the RHEL5 list because it affects RHEL5 users. The
full discussion can be read from the archive for centos-devel at centos.org.
RH has promised its fix in RHEL5U3. CentOS has it now, the remaining
discussion is how it's distributed. If you need it now, use the CentOS5
rpm and/or lean on RH.
Note to RHEL5 on Linux-390.
The CentOS fixed rpm needs to be built for Zeds, but (probably) the
CentOS src.rpm will build fine.
Note to SLES10 users on linux-390
I don't have a clue whether this applies to you, it could. Code to test
it can be found in the archive I mentioned above.
Marcus Moeller wrote:
Dear John.
_I_ would prefer to pick it up automatically, without having to make special
configuration changes or use unusual commandline arguments. I'm looking for
someone to explain why it should not be so, and "binary compatibility" isn't
it. Nor does the overview at www.centos.org explain why not.
It's not only about binary compatibility (of course this patch might
not break with it). It's more about dividing from upstream.
That's not, afaics, a stated objective. There is a downside (prospective
problems for users) in not fixing the problem for all C5 users.
What disadvantage is there to CentOS supplying its fix through the
regular updates repo? MM, like me, doesn't see a problem with binary
compatibility. The fix is available and implemented and (to some extent)
tested. Apparently, RH has promised to fix it properly at some point in
the future and the RH fix will automatically supersede the C fix.
As mentioned before RH will push out a fix sooner or later. Those
systems that are affected (which is non of mine, at least) may be
patched using testing or even fasttrack repo.
As I've said before, I don't think most people would know, unless they
run over the problem in their own code, and if they do encounter it and
use Google as I did, the fix they are more likely to find is "build your
own perl."
I value compatibility with RH even though, in practice, it's probably
not going to affect me directly - I'm unlikely to use commercial
certified software - but I don't see a reason for retaining RH bugs just
for compatibility.
Note, my C5 system doesn't even have a definition of a testing or
fasttrack repo.
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
You cannot reply off-list:-)
_______________________________________________
rhelv5-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
