This is a perfectly valid bug report and service request to file via
MOS to Oracle. They will initially deny the problem but if you press a
little then the thing gets reported to Solaris guys in there and they
will look at it. I had to go through the same silly dance on a bug
with "zoneadm move" which fails when a zone has to go from one ZFS
filesystem to another on separate ZPools and there is a file or
directory entry with oddball characters in it. Turns out that zoneadm
has to call cpio to do the copy and then cpio fails when it hits a
special character anywhere in the file pathnames. So, push the
problem over onto the MOS folks because this looks like a valid bug in
patchadd.
Paul
On 11/12/13, Martin Paul wrote:
> Am 12.11.2013 13:18, schrieb Richard Skelton:
>> This machine was built from a flash image which can install on Sun4u and
>> Sun4v
>
> Maybe that's what's creating troubles here. After looking at the
> provided files, I found out that the affected system has multiple
> versions for different architectures installed for some of the packages.
>
> E.g. patch 150109 patches SUNWcakr.v (which means it will only apply to
> sun4v systems). In your pkginfo output I see:
>
> SUNWcakrCore Solaris Kernel Architecture (Root)
> (sparc.sun4u) 11.10.0,REV=2005.01.21.15.53
> SUNWcakr.2 Core Solaris Kernel Architecture (Root)
> (sparc.sun4us) 11.10.0,REV=2005.01.20.17.25
> SUNWcakr.3 Core Solaris Kernel Architecture (Root)
> (sparc.sun4v) 11.10.0,REV=2005.08.25.02.12
>
> So three instances of SUNWcakr are installed, for sun4u, sun4us and
> sun4v. That's no problem for PCA, it correctly identifies 150109 to
> apply to your system.
>
> It seems as if patchadd has a problem with that situation, though. Even
> though the VERSION in 150109-01/SUNWcakr.v/pkginfo perfectly matches
> tht installed package (SUNWcakr.3, sparc.sun4v,
> 11.10.0,REV=2005.08.25.02.12), it refuses to install the patch.
>
> Try to remove SUNWcakr and SUNWcakr.2 and check whether PCA still shows
> the patch as missing and patchadd installs it. If so, you should
> probably adapt your installation procedure.
>
> hth,
> Martin.
>
>