<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi Martin,<br>
<br>
The addition of this note is the result of a looong email thread
internally.<br>
<br>
We were discussing whether we could internally update the backing
database which generates patchdiag or not.<br>
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).<br>
Essentially, this check prevents us updating the database's patch
requirements.<br>
<br>
For this reason the README update was seen as the best possible
alternative...<br>
<br>
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.<br>
Bottom line is that the potential cost far outweighs the potential
gain.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Hope this makes sense!<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
-Don<br>
<br>
<br>
On 28/10/11 11:11, Martin Paul wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:4EAA7FD0.2020406@par.univie.ac.at" type="cite">Hi
Don and all,
<br>
<br>
In the READMEs of the new patches 124630-60 and 119534-29 a note
has been added:
<br>
<br>
NOTE: The list of 'patches required with this patch' (above) has
been
<br>
modified from the list specified at patch creation time. The
reason for
<br>
the modification is that one or more of the required patches was
<br>
either never released or withdrawn after its release. The
following
<br>
substitutions (which are guaranteed to satisfy the original
requirements)
<br>
were therefore made:
<br>
<br>
124628-03 replaces 126677-02
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
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:
<br>
<br>
($r eq "125077-02") && ($r="120011-09"); # 119757
<br>
($r eq "125078-02") && ($r="120012-10"); # 119758
<br>
($r eq "125486-01") && ($r="120011-14"); # 126206
<br>
($r eq "125487-01") && ($r="120012-14"); # 126207
<br>
($r eq "114431-03") && ($r="117172-17"); # 116473
<br>
<br>
Read like this: Patch 119757 requires 125077-02, which doesn't
exist, so it should require 120011-09 instead.
<br>
<br>
Martin.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<a href="http://www.oracle.com/"> <img
src="cid:part1.07040107.06050307@oracle.com" name="logo"
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>