[pca] Wrong patches downloaded

[Myers, Mike]

You have to prove it's...perfect?  Wow...

PCA uses the patchdiag.xref file which has 10 fields (see http://sunsolve.sun.com/search/document.do?assetkey=1-9-240587-1 for the official documentation of it).

Field 8 is "OS Version".  For this specific patch it's listed as "unbundled" which means this is a patch for a product that's not tied to an OS release.  But of course that's contradicted by the description...

110936|22|Apr/07/05| |S| |  |Unbundled|sparc;|...|Sun Management Center 3.0: (GA) Patch for Solaris 2.6

So you can see Sun doesn't even aim for "perfect"

Cheers, 
 - Mike.Myers <at> nwdc.net 
-----Original Message-----
From: pca-bounces at lists.univie.ac.at [mailto:pca-bounces at lists.univie.ac.at] On Behalf Of Ron Halstead
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 1:45 PM
To: PCA (Patch Check Advanced) Discussion
Subject: [pca] Wrong patches downloaded

Using the following pca options, I ran my pca wrapper script on a 
Solaris 8 machine.
The following patches were downloaded from my patch proxy server.

pca --nocheckxref \
    --patchdir=${TMPDIR} \
    --xrefdir=/patches/pca/htdocs/${ROLE} \
    --patchurl=http://${SERVER}/dev/pca-proxy.cgi \
    --xrefurl=http://${SERVER}/dev/pca-proxy.cgi \
    --fromfiles=/tmp/${HOSTNAME}_ \
    --install $PATCHGRP | tee 
/patches/pca/logs/${HOSTNAME}.patchlog.`date +%y%m%d` 2>&1

110936 -- < 22 -S- 999 Sun Management Center 3.0: (GA) Patch for Solaris 2.6
110937 -- < 22 -S- 999 Sun Management Center 3.0: (GA) Patch for Solaris 7
110971 -- < 22 -S- 999 Sun Management Center 3.0: (RR) Patch for Solaris 2.6
110972 -- < 22 -S- 999 Sun Management Center 3.0: (RR) Patch for Solaris 7

As you can see, they are for Solaris 2.6 and 7. not Solaris 8. How did 
this happen? In order to use my
pca wrapper scripts in production, I must prove to management that pca 
is "perfect". I believe I can
convince my boss that this is so, but I would like to know the cause.

By the way, the rest of the patches were correctly installed and I did 
not have this problem on a
Solaris 10 machine.

Ron