On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 02:16:22PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 21/03/2015 20:00, Niels de Vos wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 02:31:03PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Firefox and xulrunner are bundling their own copy of jemalloc (try
strings /usr/lib64/xulrunner/xulrunner |grep
On 21/03/2015 20:00, Niels de Vos wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 02:31:03PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Firefox and xulrunner are bundling their own copy of jemalloc (try
strings /usr/lib64/xulrunner/xulrunner |grep jemalloc, or similarly
with /usr/lib64/firefox/firefox-bin).
Why isn't
Firefox and xulrunner are bundling their own copy of jemalloc (try
strings /usr/lib64/xulrunner/xulrunner |grep jemalloc, or similarly
with /usr/lib64/firefox/firefox-bin).
Why isn't this recorded in the RPM provides (and why is there no mention
of jemalloc in
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com wrote:
Firefox and xulrunner are bundling their own copy of jemalloc (try
strings /usr/lib64/xulrunner/xulrunner |grep jemalloc, or similarly
with /usr/lib64/firefox/firefox-bin).
Why isn't this recorded in the RPM provides
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 02:31:03PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Firefox and xulrunner are bundling their own copy of jemalloc (try
strings /usr/lib64/xulrunner/xulrunner |grep jemalloc, or similarly
with /usr/lib64/firefox/firefox-bin).
Why isn't this recorded in the RPM provides (and why is
On 03/21/2015 01:00 PM, Niels de Vos wrote:
On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 02:31:03PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Firefox and xulrunner are bundling their own copy of jemalloc (try
strings /usr/lib64/xulrunner/xulrunner |grep jemalloc, or similarly
with /usr/lib64/firefox/firefox-bin).
Why isn't this
