Re: [pca] Non-existing patch

[Don O'Malley]

Hi Martin, The addition of this note is the result of a looong email thread internally. We were discussing whether we could internally update the backing database which generates patchdiag or not. 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). Essentially, this check prevents us updating the database's patch requirements. For this reason the README update was seen as the best possible alternative... 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. Bottom line is that the potential cost far outweighs the potential gain. 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. Hope this makes sense! Best, -Don On 28/10/11 11:11, Martin Paul wrote: Hi Don and all, In the READMEs of the new patches 124630-60 and 119534-29 a note has been added:   NOTE: The list of 'patches required with this patch' (above) has been   modified from the list specified at patch creation time. The reason for   the modification is that one or more of the required patches was   either never released or withdrawn after its release. The following   substitutions (which are guaranteed to satisfy the original requirements)   were therefore made:   124628-03 replaces 126677-02 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. 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. 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:   ($r eq "125077-02") && ($r="120011-09"); # 119757   ($r eq "125078-02") && ($r="120012-10"); # 119758   ($r eq "125486-01") && ($r="120011-14"); # 126206   ($r eq "125487-01") && ($r="120012-14"); # 126207   ($r eq "114431-03") && ($r="117172-17"); # 116473 Read like this: Patch 119757 requires 125077-02, which doesn't exist, so it should require 120011-09 instead. Martin. -- Don O'Malley Manager,Patch System Test Revenue Product Engineering | Solaris | Hardware East Point Business Park, Dublin 3, Ireland Phone: +353 1 8199764 Team Alias: rpe_patch_system_test...@oracle.com