[pca] Problems with UTF patch on minimized system

[Don O'Malley]

See http://sunsolve.sun.com/search/document.do?assetkey=1-61-215491-1 
(contract required to view this Knowledge Article) for further info on 
supported system minimization.

Don O'Malley wrote:
> Hi Martin/Thomas,
>
> We do test a patch against the standard install metaclusters.
>
> The testing we do should ensure that if a patch has pkgs that are 
> delivered as part of a particular install metacluster (i.e. SUNWCXall, 
> SUNWCprog, SUNWCreq, etc.), that all required patches that patch has 
> will have at least one pkg from the same install metacluster (i.e. we 
> ensure that all the required patches can be installed).
>
> It is worth noting that the testing that we do involves testing 
> against the defined install Metaclusters, so if a customer has done 
> some custom minimization/hardening of their system then this is 
> obviously not a scenario that it is possible for us to test.
>
> From the sound of things Thomas, you had a minimized system which you 
> subsequently added the SUNWuiu8 pkg to.
> You the ran into issues when attempting to patch SUNWuiu8, as patch 
> 121734-08 could not install the required patches (as their required 
> pkgs are not on the system).
> This configuration is way outside of the configurations that Sun 
> support and as there is absolutely nothing to prevent you from using 
> pkgadd/pkgrm to add/remove whichever pkgs you like from a system, this 
> is not something that we ever could support in the current architecture.
>
> Best,
> -Don
>
>
> Martin Paul wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> thanks for your help. I did try to add the mentioned packages but 
>>> after that I got even more of these error messages, so I did not try 
>>> further.
>>
>> Yes, the problem is that package A again will require package B and 
>> C, and so on, and finally you end up installing "Entire Distribution" 
>> anyway. I've always been a fan of "don't install what you don't 
>> need", too, but Sun doesn't seem to favour this approach anymore.
>>
>>> Perhaps there could be implemented a "distribution service" in pca? 
>>> We use a proxy-setup and all of our client machines have identical 
>>> pca.conf files.
>>
>> I guess NFS (and a central pca.conf) is not feasible for you? The 
>> idea of having a central pca.conf on a proxy might be worth thinking 
>> about in the future, though. I'll put it on my ToDo list, but don't 
>> expect anything soon.
>>
>>> I'm wondering, why this problem had not hit me earlier. I use pca 
>>> for about 2 years now (GREAT THANKS again to you!) without the need 
>>> to add even ONE ignore line. So I thought this is a special problem 
>>> which could be solved by the Sunny boys or you.
>>
>> I've had similar issues reported to me, but probably not more than 
>> one per year. Actually, I agree that Sun should be able to fix this. 
>> IMHO, it's a bug when package A doesn't require package B, but a 
>> patch for package A requires a patch for package B. If you can 
>> install package A without package B, I guess you should always be 
>> able to install a patch for package A without requiring a patch for 
>> package B.
>>
>>> Thanks again. I really don't know what to do if pca would no exists.
>>
>> Thanks, me neither. If it wouldn't exist, I'd have to create it :)
>>
>> Martin.
>>
>