[pca] Non-existing patch

[Don O'Malley]

Hi Martin,

The addition of this note is the result of a looong email thread internally.

We were discussing whether we could internally update the backing 
database which generates patchdiag or not.
After investigation it turns out that the database could not handle an 
update to the actual 'requires' field, as there is an integrity check in 
place to ensure that the 'requires' field is consistent with the info in 
the pkginfo SUNW_REQUIRES filed (which patchadd uses to resolve patch 
dependencies).
Essentially, this check prevents us updating the database's patch 
requirements.

For this reason the README update was seen as the best possible 
alternative...

I know it may sound a bit OTT that we cannot override these things, but 
when you need an extremely scalable solution (as we clearly do with over 
30,000 patches available), then each error opportunity you introduce by 
allowing such audits to be overridden has a massive multiplier effect 
when you consider the number of individual patches that could have an 
issue as a result.
Bottom line is that the potential cost far outweighs the potential gain.

Thanks for sending on the list of additional patches with similar 
defects; I'll ensure they get similar README updates to indicate the 
replacement requirements.

Hope this makes sense!

Best,
-Don


On 28/10/11 11:11, Martin Paul wrote:
> Hi Don and all,
>
> In the READMEs of the new patches 124630-60 and 119534-29 a note has 
> been added:
>
>   NOTE: The list of 'patches required with this patch' (above) has been
>   modified from the list specified at patch creation time. The reason for
>   the modification is that one or more of the required patches was
>   either never released or withdrawn after its release. The following
>   substitutions (which are guaranteed to satisfy the original 
> requirements)
>   were therefore made:
>
>   124628-03 replaces 126677-02
>
> This replacement is a good thing, but unfortunately it has only taken 
> place in the README and not in the "patchinfo" files nor in 
> patchdiag.xref - those still refer to 126677-02 (which, as the note 
> says, has never been released). Now PCA has always taken care of that 
> by internally replacing 126677-02 with 124628-03 when resolving 
> dependencies, so there's no new problem.
>
> It would be nice, though, now that the problem has been noticed, to 
> fix this issue in all places (patch README, patchinfo, patchdiag.xref) 
> to make this consistent again.
>
> The same applies to the corresponding x86 patches, BTW (non-existant 
> 126678 required by 124631 and 119535). And just for completeness, here 
> is the list of all non-existant patches to be found as required 
> patches in patchdiag.xref, and how they are taken care of in PCA:
>
>   ($r eq "125077-02") && ($r="120011-09"); # 119757
>   ($r eq "125078-02") && ($r="120012-10"); # 119758
>   ($r eq "125486-01") && ($r="120011-14"); # 126206
>   ($r eq "125487-01") && ($r="120012-14"); # 126207
>   ($r eq "114431-03") && ($r="117172-17"); # 116473
>
> Read like this: Patch 119757 requires 125077-02, which doesn't exist, 
> so it should require 120011-09 instead.
>
> Martin.
>

-- 
<http://www.oracle.com/>
*Don O'Malley*
Manager,Patch System Test
Revenue Product Engineering | Solaris | Hardware
East Point Business Park, Dublin 3, Ireland
Phone: +353 1 8199764
Team Alias: rpe_patch_system_test_ww at oracle.com 
<mailto:rpe_patch_system_test_ww at oracle.com>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.univie.ac.at/pipermail/pca/attachments/20111028/87ff0256/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: logo
Type: image/gif
Size: 567 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.univie.ac.at/pipermail/pca/attachments/20111028/87ff0256/attachment.gif>