| |||||||||||||
Bitten by the Red Hat Perl bug (InfoWorld)Bitten by the Red Hat Perl bug (InfoWorld)Posted Aug 28, 2008 18:21 UTC (Thu) by arjan (subscriber, #36785)Parent article: Bitten by the Red Hat Perl bug (InfoWorld)
Funny that he blames Red Hat for a bug in CentOS.....
even though it's probably a shared bug, it's just dishonest to blame a company who's product you don't even use for a bug, and who's support you haven't even consulted...
(Log in to post comments)
Bitten by the Red Hat Perl bug (InfoWorld) Posted Aug 28, 2008 18:37 UTC (Thu) by ncm (subscriber, #165) [Link]
It's not dishonest. If it's Red Hat's bug, blame Red Hat.
I remember when Red Hat broke sort(1), so that "sort -n" didn't work any more. Somebody I talked to from Red Hat thought that was OK, because they had also added a new feature which, I guess, worked. That was a long time ago. :-)
Bitten by the Red Hat Perl bug (InfoWorld) Posted Aug 28, 2008 18:39 UTC (Thu) by arjan (subscriber, #36785) [Link]
you were right if the OS used was an actual Red Hat OS.
It wasn't.
Bitten by the Red Hat Perl bug (InfoWorld) Posted Aug 28, 2008 18:45 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] CentOS uses Red Hat's source RPMs. It is exceedingly unlikely that you'll find a CentOS bug that isn't a Red Hat bug.
Bitten by the Red Hat Perl bug (InfoWorld) Posted Aug 28, 2008 22:20 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
I wouldn't call it exceeding unlikely and those issues are not necessarily the fault or rebuilders. Besides if you are a RHEL customer, you would have got a hotfix for this issue a while back
Bitten by the Red Hat Perl bug (InfoWorld) Posted Aug 29, 2008 0:03 UTC (Fri) by rise (guest, #5045) [Link]
Err, no - read the articles & posts. It's a Red Hat issue that CentOS inherited and if you check with current RHEL customers they can tell you that the fixes have been slow to come and insufficient. Cutting Perl performance by a factor of 100 and then "fixing" it to only a 50x performance drop (or even 10x) isn't good support.
Bitten by the Red Hat Perl bug (InfoWorld) Posted Aug 29, 2008 0:59 UTC (Fri) by qg6te2 (guest, #52587) [Link] [an] issue that CentOS inheritedCentOS is not commercially supported. Period. If the recent re-discoverer of the perl bug (Vipul Ved Prakash) had been using RHEL (and hence had a support contract) he may have had a more direct recourse to getting it fixed, notwithstanding Red Hat's (current) low priority on the bug. Instead of moaning about it on his blog, he would have had the right to raise a stink with Red Hat directly.
Bitten by the Red Hat Perl bug (InfoWorld) Posted Aug 29, 2008 9:29 UTC (Fri) by felixfix (subscriber, #242) [Link]
None of that changes the fact that if the CentOS perl is straight from RedHat, and that is where the bug originated, it is a RedHat bug. If the bug originated within Perl HQ, RedHat coped it, and CentOS copied RedHat, it would be a Perl bug. If CentOS modified what they got from RedHat and thereby introduced the bug, it would be a CentOS bug.
Bitten by the Red Hat Perl bug (InfoWorld) Posted Aug 29, 2008 14:58 UTC (Fri) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link]
Oh please. If it had been an upstream perl bug, and had been reported by a Red Hat user who found that the bug was reproducible from pristine perl sources, would you have called it "dishonest" to blame upstream, and asked Red Hat to accept blame?
Red Hat takes from the perl people. CentOS takes from Red Hat. This bug was introduced by Red Hat. CentOS does not do their own development and entirely piggybacks on Red Hat, (which is legal, though it's not a distribution I'd use).
|
|||||||||||||