[pca] Single-User revisited

[Fred Chagnon]

This is similar to what I'm doing now, except I'm installing via an NFS
share (without pca). It works well with the exception of the two kernel
patches I mentioned. However due to recent issues with the aforementioned
kernel patches, I'm trying to rethink how patches are applied.
I like the idea of using pca to download patches first then install after in
whichever mode I choose. A wrapper script can be smart enough to detect the
run-level and save the reboot ones for single-user only. I was just hoping
to keep it a one-step process if at all possible.

Fred

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Smith, Kev <KSmith at espeed.co.uk> wrote:

>  Why not drop the server to single user, start the network from the rc3.d
> scripts which will allow you to DL patches and apply them in single user.
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* pca-bounces at lists.univie.ac.at [mailto:
> pca-bounces at lists.univie.ac.at] *On Behalf Of *Fred Chagnon
> *Sent:* 11 September 2008 14:44
> *To:* PCA (Patch Check Advanced) Discussion
> *Subject:* [pca] Single-User revisited
>
>  I know it's an age-old question. To patch in single-user, or not.
> I'm concerned mostly about the patches that require a reconfigure reboot.
> For example sparc kernel patches 120011-14 or 127127-11. Has anyone had any
> problems applying these patches in multi-user mode on a running system?
>
> I'm asking because I would like to implement the use of a pca proxy, but I
> figure in order to download a patch from the proxy, I can't be running in
> single-user mode -- and as much as possible I would like the process to be
> streamlined such that applying kernel patches uses pca the same as any other
> trivial patch.
>
> Thanks for any insight.
>
> --
> Fred Chagnon
> fchagnon at gmail.com
>
> http://www.espeed.com
> CONFIDENTIAL: This e-mail, including its contents and attachments, if any,
> are confidential. If you are not the named recipient please notify the
> sender and immediately delete it. You may not disseminate, distribute, or
> forward this e-mail message or disclose its contents to anybody else.
> Copyright and any other intellectual property rights in its contents are the
> sole property of eSpeed, Inc and its affiliates.
> This e-mail was issued by eSpeed International Limited ("eSpeed"). eSpeed
> is a limited liability company incorporated under the laws of England
> (company number 3809189 and VAT registration number 577 406809). eSpeed's
> registered office is at 40 Bank Street, Canary Wharf, London E14 5DW. For
> any issues arising from this email please reply to the sender.
> E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free. The
> sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in
> the contents of this message which arise as a result of e-mail transmission.
> If verification is required please request a hard-copy version.
> Although we routinely screen for viruses, addressees should check this
> e-mail and any attachments for viruses. We make no representation or
> warranty as to the absence of viruses in this e-mail or any attachments.
> Please note that to ensure regulatory compliance and for the protection of
> our customers and business, we may monitor and read e-mails sent to and from
> our server(s).
>



-- 
Fred Chagnon
fchagnon at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.univie.ac.at/mailman/private/pca/attachments/20080911/7c749090/attachment.html