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

This is a discussion on Patch 118844-28 is declared as incompatible by 117462-02 - Solaris ; 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 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

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

  1. 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
    groenveld@acm.org

  2. Re: Patch 118844-28 is declared as incompatible by 117462-02

    In comp.unix.solaris John D Groenveld wrote:
    > patchadd(1M) reports:
    > | 0 Patch 118844-28 is declared as incompatible by 117462-02,
    > | which has already been installed on the system.


    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

  3. Re: Patch 118844-28 is declared as incompatible by 117462-02

    In article <43df1fe5$0$12384$3b214f66@usenet.univie.ac.at>,
    Martin Paul wrote:
    >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 ?


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

    John
    groenveld@acm.org

  4. Re: Patch 118844-28 is declared as incompatible by 117462-02

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


    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
    groenveld@acm.org

  5. Re: Patch 118844-28 is declared as incompatible by 117462-02

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

    >
    > 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
    > groenveld@acm.org



  6. Re: Patch 118844-28 is declared as incompatible by 117462-02

    In article <1140747670.800046.73940@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.c om>,
    SPARCed wrote:
    >Did you add 119255-10, before you tried this? We saw a variation of


    Yes.

    John
    groenveld@acm.org

+ Reply to Thread