[pca] Patch mismatch when analyzing

[Martin Paul]

Laurent Blume wrote:
> I don't understand where 116856 comes from (and 116856-01 is marked as
> conflicting with 116736-25).

One of the packages included in 116856 (according to the xref file) must 
be installed on the machine; you have to look at pkginfo output to find 
out which one. The strange thing is that all of the packages do have a 
SUNWps:6.2 prefix, which seems correct. Either newer versions of PS 
install at least one SUNW*6.2 packages, or it is a leftover from a 
previous installation of an older version of PS.

As for patch incompatibilities - pca ignores these. They haven't been 
used a lot by Sun, and if so, they created more problems than they 
solved. The most important problem is that if you have two patches which 
do apply to a system, and one says it's incompatible with the other, how 
can pca decide which one to show and which to ignore?

> And 118607 & 118609 make no sense. Patches for a beta? Empty READMEs?
> Looks like completely wrong to me...

The READMEs in the patch zip files aren't empty. They state that these 
patches bring in new packages, e.g. from README.118607-01:

   This patch is used to bring SUNWjmail into existence if it does not
   already exist. That is the sole purpose of this patch.

Unusual, but there have been similar patches in the past (like the one 
which removed SUNWman and brought in a completely new version of the 
packages under Solaris 9 (AFAIR).

The beta tag is strange, though.

> Again, it's rather poor Q/A in the patch production that seems to be
> responsible here.

Yes. I've never had any version of Portal Server installed on any of my 
machines. If others on the list do have experience in installing and 
patching it, feel free to share your knowledge.

Martin.