Thank you again! This is also fixed. I checked it with the version of patches that I previously deployed to my hosts . When I actually did the patching, I used pca.20120829 and am not missing any patches from its point of view.
However, when using either of the two newer PCA 20130225-01 and 20130228-01 against the same xref I see that I'm actually missing patches. My last patch cycle really did miss these patches and I didn't know it at the time. Thank you for fixing this. $ ../pca.20120829-01 -l -f M4000_hostname --nocheckxref --xrefdir=/installs/2012Q3_patches --minimal missingr Using /installs/2012Q3_patches/patchdiag.xref from Aug/15/12 Host: M4000_hostname (SunOS 5.10/Generic_147440-19/sparc/sun4u) List: missingr-minimal (0/0) $ ../pca.20130225-01 -l -f M4000_hostname --nocheckxref --xrefdir=/installs/2012Q3_patches --minimal missingr Using /installs/2012Q3_patches/patchdiag.xref from Aug/15/12 Host: M4000_hostname (SunOS 5.10/Generic_147440-19/sparc/sun4u) List: missingr-minimal (2/524) Patch IR CR RSB Age Synopsis ------ -- - -- --- --- ------------------------------------------------------- 125136 31 < 35 RS- 262 Obsoleted by: 125136-36 JavaSE 6: update 33 patch (equivalent to J 125137 31 < 35 RS- 262 Obsoleted by: 125137-36 JavaSE 6: update 33 patch (equivalent to J This is the 20130228-01 version: $ ../pca -l -f M4000_hostname --nocheckxref --xrefdir=/installs/2012Q3_patches --minimal missingr Using /installs/2012Q3_patches/patchdiag.xref from Aug/15/12 Host: M4000_hostname (SunOS 5.10/Generic_147440-19/sparc/sun4u) List: missingr-minimal (2/524) Patch IR CR RSB Age Synopsis ------ -- - -- --- --- ------------------------------------------------------- 125136 31 < 35 RS- 262 Obsoleted by: 125136-36 JavaSE 6: update 33 patch (equivalent to J 125137 31 < 35 RS- 262 Obsoleted by: 125137-36 JavaSE 6: update 33 patch (equivalent to J Neil G. Brookins Identity and Authentication Solutions - IT Global Solutions Towers Watson 1500 Market Street | Philadelphia, PA 19102 Phone: +1 215 246 6046 neil.brook...@towerswatson.com -----Original Message----- From: pca-boun...@lists.univie.ac.at [mailto:pca-boun...@lists.univie.ac.at] On Behalf Of Martin Paul Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 7:22 AM To: PCA (Patch Check Advanced) Discussion Subject: Re: [pca] patchdiag.xref changes broken for 2 days. Am 21.02.2013 16:38, schrieb Brookins, Neil (Philadelphia): > I've been closely watching the daily changes in the patchdiag.xref in > the past 2 weeks. I've found a serious problem that will result in > PCA not applying patches that should be applied if certain versions > of patchdiag.xref are used. Confirmed. Thanks for noticing this and especially the amount of details you provided, this helped a lot when looking at the issue. I've put a fix into the development release of PCA - you can try that with the xref file "AS OF Feb/18/13". Comparing output of "pca --minimal missingr" between the stable and development releases of PCA, you'll notice that the fixed version will now show the last recommended revision of the Java patches. > The solution to this problem is to keep the older Java patch listed > as recommended in the patchdiag.xref until the new patch is added to > the same file. Actually, Oracle does that. In xref "AS OF Feb/18/13", they add a new revision of 118666 (42), which is marked S but not R. The previous revision (41) is marked O (obsolete), but keeps the R flag. With "--minimal", PCA is supposed to ignore the O flag on rev. 41 and use that. The problem was that there are two other revisions of 118666 in xref, 19 and 34, and both are marked R/S/O as well. No idea why, and I really think that these should be removed by Oracle (the Java patches were the only ones I found with that pattern). The bug in PCA was that it used the first of these revisions (19) and not the last (41). That's what I've fixed now. Thanks again for the report, Martin. Notice of Confidentiality This transmission contains information that may be confidential. It has been prepared for the sole and exclusive use of the intended recipient and on the basis agreed with that person. If you are not the intended recipient of the message (or authorized to receive it for the intended recipient), you should notify us immediately; you should delete it from your system and may not disclose its contents to anyone else. This e-mail has come to you from Towers Watson Delaware Inc.
