Zope 2.1.0 Linux binary now fixed for RH 5.x users...
Hi all, For those of you who have reported strange problems with the Zope 2.1.0 binary release on your Linux systems, the Zope 2.1.0 binary release for Linux has been updated. The previous one was compiled with a backward-incompatible version of glibc on an RH 6 machine, which caused a problem for some users. The updated build has been verified to work on RH 5.x systems, and should work on 6.x as well (I'd appreciate it if a 6.x user out there could make a post to the list to verify this). The re-build is available from the usual place on Zope.org: http://www.zope.org/Products/Zope/2.1.0/ Brian Lloyd brian@digicool.com Software Engineer 540.371.6909 Digital Creations http://www.digicool.com
Brian Lloyd wrote:
Hi all,
For those of you who have reported strange problems with the Zope 2.1.0 binary release on your Linux systems, the Zope 2.1.0 binary release for Linux has been updated.
The previous one was compiled with a backward-incompatible version of glibc on an RH 6 machine, which caused a problem for some users. The updated build has been verified to work on RH 5.x systems, and should work on 6.x as well (I'd appreciate it if a 6.x user out there could make a post to the list to verify this).
It runs fine on my RedHat 6.1 installation. -- Nick Garcia | ngarcia@codeit.com CodeIt Computing | http://codeit.com
[Nick Garcia, on Mon, 06 Dec 1999] :: Brian Lloyd wrote: :: > :: > Hi all, :: > :: > For those of you who have reported strange problems with the :: > Zope 2.1.0 binary release on your Linux systems, the Zope 2.1.0 :: > binary release for Linux has been updated. :: > :: > The previous one was compiled with a backward-incompatible :: > version of glibc on an RH 6 machine, which caused a problem :: > for some users. The updated build has been verified to work :: > on RH 5.x systems, and should work on 6.x as well (I'd :: > appreciate it if a 6.x user out there could make a post to :: > the list to verify this). :: :: It runs fine on my RedHat 6.1 installation. I snarfed the *original* version Friday night for a 6.1 install. Are there any issues with future CVS stuff?
Thanks for getting the new version of 2.1.0 out...it works like a champ now. I'm also glad to report that the performance problem I had just recently tracked down and was about to report has been fixed (which was why I was so anxious to try out 2.1.0 in the first place...the updates listed a fix for a problem that sounded suspiciously like the one I had just discovered). Now my heavy-duty Python module that makes extensive use of string-based DTML rendering went from about 2.2 seconds/use to about 0.22 seconds/use. Woohoo! (The problem apparently was the unnecesary reloading of External Methods, which I'm guessing was causing all of my Python code's internal HTML objects to be re-cooked on each use). Thanks again... Dave Morrill
participants (4)
-
Brian Lloyd -
David C. Morrill -
Nick Garcia -
Patrick Phalen