[pca] [Fwd: Unbundled patches showing up when listing missing security patches]

[Jeff]

Thanks Martin.  An example of the patches I saw is 138135-01.  In my case,
these are patches that are associated with packages that are part of another
Sun product but are not part of the OS, or at least I assume they are, even
though I don't see a package associated with that patch in patchdiag.  The
question is, is there a combo of command line options I can use where I can
still specify listing all "missingrs" patch groups but ignore any that are
unbundled, because I don't want to patch packages that came as part of a
non-OS product.  Right now, if I only list "missingr" packages, it won't
list unbundled patches, and most security patches are also recommended.

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:32 AM, Martin Paul <martin at par.univie.ac.at>wrote:

>  From: Jeff <variverrat at gmail.com>
>>
>> My question is, should I get a return of an unbundled patch if I didn't
>> specify listing the unbundled patch group, or is it just the case that
>> since it is marked security, using "missingrs" as an option supercedes it.
>> Is there a way to filter out the unbundled patches in this particular case
>> without making an ignore rule for each one?
>>
>
> The "Unbundled" specifier doesn't seem to have an exact definition. There
> are two kinds of "Unbundled" patches:
>
> Real unbundled patches do not have any packages listed in the xref file
> which they apply to. They usually have special install instructions, and can
> not be simply applied with patchadd. No such patch should be shown in the
> "missing" list of pca.
>
> Then there are patches which do have packages listed, which can be applied
> with patchadd and which are denoted "Unbundled". In the past I've seen this
> used for e.g. Gnome patches, probably to express that this was an add-on
> ("unbundled") to the Solaris OS. Sometimes it is/was used for patches for
> extra software which was available for more than one Solaris release. If pca
> shows such a patch in the "missing" list, it's because the package coming in
> the patch is installed on the system, so that's correct.
>
> If you are still uncertain about one of the patches in question, please
> provide the patch IDs so we can have a look.
>
> Martin.
>
>


-- 
Jeff
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.univie.ac.at/mailman/private/pca/attachments/20100714/bcae014f/attachment.html