Patch 118844-28 is declared as incompatible by 117462-02

I'm trying to install 118844-28 on S10 FCS system with 118844-27 installed.
$ cat /etc/release
Solaris 10 3/05 s10_74L2a X86
Copyright 2005 Sun Microsystems, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Use is subject to license terms.
Assembled 22 January 2005
$ uname -srv
SunOS 5.10 Generic_118844-27

patchadd(1M) reports:
| 0 Patch 118844-28 is declared as incompatible by 117462-02,
| which has already been installed on the system.

pca confirms that 117462 was installed was obsoleted.
$ ./pca -a|grep 117462
117462 03 = 03 108 Obsoleted by: 118844-27 SunOS 5.10_x86: boot.bin patch

I can't duplicate with my other S10 FCS installs with similar patch
histories.

Has anyone here seen this bug before?

John
[email]groenveld@acm.org[/email]

In comp.unix.solaris John D Groenveld <groenvel@cse.psu.edu> wrote:[color=blue]
> patchadd(1M) reports:
> | 0 Patch 118844-28 is declared as incompatible by 117462-02,
> | which has already been installed on the system.[/color]

Strange. Neither the xref file nor the patch READMEs and patchinfo files
know about this supposed incompatibility.

Does "grep PATCH_INFO /var/sadm/pkg/*/pkginfo | grep 117462" reveal
anything ?

mp.
--
Systems Administrator | Institute of Scientific Computing | Univ. of Vienna

In article <43df1fe5$0$12384$3b214f66@usenet.univie.ac.at>,
Martin Paul <map@par.univie.ac.at> wrote:[color=blue]
>Strange. Neither the xref file nor the patch READMEs and patchinfo files
>know about this supposed incompatibility.
>
>Does "grep PATCH_INFO /var/sadm/pkg/*/pkginfo | grep 117462" reveal
>anything ?[/color]

Guess I'm going to need to learn dtrace to figure out from where this bug
is coming.

John
[email]groenveld@acm.org[/email]

In article <drld8m$1dl$1@neuromancer.cse.psu.edu>,
John D Groenveld <groenvel@cse.psu.edu> wrote:[color=blue]
>patchadd(1M) reports:
>| 0 Patch 118844-28 is declared as incompatible by 117462-02,
>| which has already been installed on the system.[/color]

patchadd(1M) with -t got me further along.
My WAG is there's a bug in pdo stuff.
I'll see what happens when -29 is released.

John
[email]groenveld@acm.org[/email]

Hi John,

Did you add 119255-10, before you tried this? We saw a variation of
this
problem a while ago, and it appears to be solved by patching pdo,
although
the reason it is solved is not clear.

-carol

John D Groenveld wrote:[color=blue]
> In article <drld8m$1dl$1@neuromancer.cse.psu.edu>,
> John D Groenveld <groenvel@cse.psu.edu> wrote:[color=green]
> >patchadd(1M) reports:
> >| 0 Patch 118844-28 is declared as incompatible by 117462-02,
> >| which has already been installed on the system.[/color]
>
> patchadd(1M) with -t got me further along.
> My WAG is there's a bug in pdo stuff.
> I'll see what happens when -29 is released.
>
> John
> [email]groenveld@acm.org[/email][/color]

In article <1140747670.800046.73940@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
SPARCed <clepage@us.fujitsu.com> wrote:[color=blue]
>Did you add 119255-10, before you tried this? We saw a variation of[/color]

Yes.

John
[email]groenveld@acm.org[/email]