Q: correct PSF machine_type for HP-UX 11i - HP UX

This is a discussion on Q: correct PSF machine_type for HP-UX 11i - HP UX ; Hi, I'm having a problem with a PSF for PA-RISC and IA64, HP-UX 11.11 to HP-UX 11.23: The software product only consists of shell scripts, so it should run on any HP-UX 11i, PA or IA. However swinstall says: ....there ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Q: correct PSF machine_type for HP-UX 11i

  1. Q: correct PSF machine_type for HP-UX 11i

    Hi,

    I'm having a problem with a PSF for PA-RISC and IA64, HP-UX 11.11 to HP-UX
    11.23: The software product only consists of shell scripts, so it should run
    on any HP-UX 11i, PA or IA. However swinstall says:

    ....there are no product variations that are compatible with the destination
    host...

    To make matters worse, there are conficts between the "spb's -V", what
    swpackage accepts, and what the manual says.

    E.g. "os_version ?" is OK for swpackage, but not for spb. spb would like a
    "*" however. The manual says "[A-Z]", but spb complains about that...

    I have
    os_name HP-UX
    os_version *
    os_release ?.11.*
    machine_type 9000/[78]*:*|ia64
    (as per B2355-90154 (Managing HP-UX Software With SD-UX: HP 9000 Computers))

    Now, what is the correct specification (different from "*")?

    Regards,
    Ulrich

  2. Re: Q: correct PSF machine_type for HP-UX 11i

    Ulrich Windl wrote:
    > machine_type 9000/[78]*:*|ia64
    > (as per B2355-90154 (Managing HP-UX Software With SD-UX: HP 9000 Computers))


    > Now, what is the correct specification (different from "*")?


    Regular expressions always make my head swim - any chance there could
    be an issue with order of precedence? Perhaps some explicit
    parentheses would help.

    What is the ':' supposed to be for anway? Should that be a '/'
    instead?

    $ uname -m
    9000/785
    $ model
    9000/785/J5600

    # uname -m
    ia64
    # model
    ia64 hp server rx1600

    rick jones
    --
    a wide gulf separates "what if" from "if only"
    these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
    feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

  3. Re: Q: correct PSF machine_type for HP-UX 11i

    Rick Jones writes:

    > Ulrich Windl wrote:
    > > machine_type 9000/[78]*:*|ia64
    > > (as per B2355-90154 (Managing HP-UX Software With SD-UX: HP 9000 Computers))

    >
    > > Now, what is the correct specification (different from "*")?

    >
    > Regular expressions always make my head swim - any chance there could
    > be an issue with order of precedence? Perhaps some explicit
    > parentheses would help.
    >
    > What is the ':' supposed to be for anway? Should that be a '/'
    > instead?


    According the to menual cited, the colon ( specifies the "bits" (32|64), so
    ":*" should be a "don't care about the number of bits".

    >
    > $ uname -m
    > 9000/785
    > $ model
    > 9000/785/J5600
    >
    > # uname -m
    > ia64
    > # model
    > ia64 hp server rx1600


    So you are suggesting to replace "ia64" with "ia64*"? Maybe that#s worth a
    try...

    Thanks & regards,
    Ulrich


    >
    > rick jones
    > --
    > a wide gulf separates "what if" from "if only"
    > these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
    > feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...


  4. Re: correct PSF machine_type for HP-UX 11i

    "Gary Quakenbush" writes:

    > "Ulrich Windl" ...
    > > . . . The software product only consists of shell scripts, so it should
    > > run
    > > on any HP-UX 11i, PA or IA. However swinstall says:
    > > . . .
    > > I have
    > > os_name HP-UX
    > > os_version *
    > > os_release ?.11.*
    > > machine_type 9000/[78]*:*|ia64

    >
    > To run on any hardware, do not set machine_type at all, or set it to *.


    OK, I agree that using "*" would work, but that's like the often-suggested
    solution to permission problems: "Give full access to everyone, and the
    problem is gone"

    >
    > For os_name, os_version, os_release, and machine_type, a value of * is the
    > default value, so gives exactly the same result as not setting the attribute
    > at all.


    While "*" might be OK for machine_type, nobody of the plain mortals will know
    how HP-UX 12 (if ever) will be, so maybe restrict the os_release to what we
    know now makes sense. Perfectionist I am, I know ;-)

    >
    > So, for your purposes, the cleanest way to do this would be to set only
    > os_name and os_release, and not mention the other two in your PSF file:
    >
    > os_name HP-UX
    > os_release ?.11.*
    >
    > Hope this helps!


    Surely, but I'm trying to find the perfect solution...

    Regards,
    Ulrich


    >
    > - Gary Quakenbush, HP Software Distributor Team


  5. Re: Q: correct PSF machine_type for HP-UX 11i

    Yesterday I wrote (today I know):

    > Hi,
    >
    > I'm having a problem with a PSF for PA-RISC and IA64, HP-UX 11.11 to HP-UX
    > 11.23: The software product only consists of shell scripts, so it should run
    > on any HP-UX 11i, PA or IA. However swinstall says:
    >
    > ...there are no product variations that are compatible with the destination
    > host...
    >
    > To make matters worse, there are conficts between the "spb's -V", what
    > swpackage accepts, and what the manual says.
    >
    > E.g. "os_version ?" is OK for swpackage, but not for spb. spb would like a
    > "*" however. The manual says "[A-Z]", but spb complains about that...
    >
    > I have
    > os_name HP-UX
    > os_version *
    > os_release ?.11.*

    "os_release ?.11.[123]*" did also work

    > machine_type 9000/[78]*:*|ia64

    "machine_type 9000/[78]*:*|ia64*" did not work, even though some genuine HP
    filesets did contain "ia64*|9000/*", "ia64*server*|9000/8*", "9000/[68]??:*",
    "*:*64", and "9000/*:*". Not specifying a machine_type for the moment did
    solve the problem.

    If swinstall were a bit more verbose on why it thinks the product was
    incompatible, it would help.

    Regards,
    Ulrich

    > (as per B2355-90154 (Managing HP-UX Software With SD-UX: HP 9000 Computers))
    >
    > Now, what is the correct specification (different from "*")?
    >
    > Regards,
    > Ulrich


+ Reply to Thread