<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi Gerard,<br>
<br>
Just to re-iterate Martin and Geln's points here; the ordering is not
important, unless of course there is a requirement between the two
patches (in which case ordering will be forced either way).<br>
<br>
My team was responsible for the rewrite of
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://support.oracle.com/CSP/main/article?cmd=show&type=NOT&id=1004881.1">https://support.oracle.com/CSP/main/article?cmd=show&type=NOT&id=1004881.1</a>.<br>
A couple of points wrt to this document:<br>
<br>
- While in the example you have given below there is no patch
dependency between the patches listed, some of the patchlists provided
for other platforms do have dependencies on eachother. This is the
reason that the generic statement "Apply the patches in the order in
which they are listed to the system's PBE" is necessary to avoid
customer confusion.<br>
<br>
- This document is designed to specify the minimum set of patches
required to provide full Live Upgrade functionality on a system - i.e.
to enable the creation and upgrade/update of an alternate boot
environment - as opposed to supporting all of the latest <b>OS
features </b>through Live Upgrade. This is a key point. The example
given in the document is:<br>
“ZFS Root Pool” was an Operating System feature introduced in Solaris
10 10/08 (Update 6), so a user would refer to the <a
href="http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/E19253-01/820-5238/index.html">Solaris
10 10/08 Installation Guide: Solaris Live Upgrade and Upgrade Planning</a>
documentation for details of Live Upgrade support for the “ZFS Root
Pool” feature. Note that new Oracle Solaris Operating System features
in an upgraded ABE become available when that ABE is activated and
booted into, do not expect these features to be come available in the
PBE as a result of installing the packages and patches listed in this
document.<br>
<br>
- You will notice that the primary Live Upgrade patches 121430/121431
have specified revisions (-57 & -58) in this document, which are
not the latest revs of these patches. This is a precautionary measure,
as the latest LU patches 121430-66 & 121431-67 contain a large
amount of change. These patches were "freshbitted"/pre-applied to the
Solaris 10 Update 10 image and deliver a major re-write of the Live
Upgrade code, to make it easier to maintain over the remainder of
Soalris 10's lifetime. Patches 121430-57 & 121431-58 do provide
full Live Upgrade functionality, so we have specified those revisions
in 1004881.1 until 121430-66 & 121431-67 have been available in the
field a little longer. That said, patches 121430-66 & 121431-67
have been heavily tested before release and since their release I have
not seen any issues with these patches. Any issues you need to be aware
of are in the README's "Special Install Instructions" sections (please
read them if you intend using these patches) - see:<br>
* <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://getupdates.oracle.com/readme/121430-66">https://getupdates.oracle.com/readme/121430-66</a><br>
* <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://getupdates.oracle.com/readme/121430-67">https://getupdates.oracle.com/readme/121430-67</a><br>
<br>
HTH,<br>
-Don<br>
<br>
<br>
Martin Paul wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4E54BBAF.8030605@par.univie.ac.at" type="cite">Hi
Gerard,
<br>
<br>
Gerard Henry wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">so perhaps, the order isn't very important in
this case. But does anybody else have seen this kind of problem ?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
PCA has simple rules for patch ordering: Order numerically (as listed
in patchdiag.xref), list required patches before those which require
them, and always put the patch utilities patch on top of the list.
<br>
<br>
While 121428-15 does require 121430-16 (an older revision), you
probably have that installed already, so the patches are listed (and
installed) in numerical order.
<br>
<br>
As Glen says, the patch order in the recommended patch cluster differs
from PCA's order, but this should cause no problems. IMHO, Oracle
should (and would) add patch requirements to enforce a certain
installation order.
<br>
<br>
As a matter of fact, many people install patches with PCA in the order
it uses, and if this would cause problems, these would be reported here
immediately (and be taken care of with a workaround in PCA).
<br>
<br>
hope that helps,
<br>
<br>
Martin.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<a href="http://www.oracle.com/"> <img
src="cid:part1.09050301.00060500@oracle.com" name="graphics1"
align="bottom" border="0"></a> <br>
<font face="Verdana, sans-serif" size="2"><b>Don O'Malley</b></font><br>
<font color="#666666" face="Verdana, sans-serif" size="2">
Manager,Patch System Test<br>
Revenue Product Engineering | Solaris | Hardware <br>
East Point Business Park, Dublin 3, Ireland<br>
Phone: +353 1 8199764 <br>
Team Alias: <a href="mailto:rpe_patch_system_test_ww@oracle.com">rpe_patch_system_test_ww@oracle.com</a><br>
</font> </div>
</body>
</html>