Re: [pca] pca recommends non-recommended patch
Neil, Am 01.03.2013 18:41, schrieb Brookins, Neil (Philadelphia): Here is the trace of the patch obsolescence in order, starting from the current recommended through the newest: 139944-01 has the R flag. It was obsoleted by 148161-02 148161-02 does NOT have R flag. It was obsoleted by 148338-03. 148338-03 does NOT have R flag. Yes, PCA is passing on the Recommended flag here from 139944 to the patch(es) which obsoleted it. Basically that's a good idea (as only 148338 contains the recommended fix(es) from 139944 now), but not when the --minimal option is used. I've put a fix into PCA which makes it not pass on the R flag with --minimal. This should fix it; try the development release of PCA. Once again, thanks for the report! Martin.
Re: [pca] pca recommends non-recommended patch
Thanks for the fix! I've tested this specific use case and it does work correctly now. 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, March 04, 2013 6:27 AM To: PCA (Patch Check Advanced) Discussion Subject: Re: [pca] pca recommends non-recommended patch Neil, Am 01.03.2013 18:41, schrieb Brookins, Neil (Philadelphia): Here is the trace of the patch obsolescence in order, starting from the current recommended through the newest: 139944-01 has the R flag. It was obsoleted by 148161-02 148161-02 does NOT have R flag. It was obsoleted by 148338-03. 148338-03 does NOT have R flag. Yes, PCA is passing on the Recommended flag here from 139944 to the patch(es) which obsoleted it. Basically that's a good idea (as only 148338 contains the recommended fix(es) from 139944 now), but not when the --minimal option is used. I've put a fix into PCA which makes it not pass on the R flag with --minimal. This should fix it; try the development release of PCA. Once again, thanks 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.
[pca] pca recommends non-recommended patch
I have a newly installed Solaris 10 U11 host. I patched it a couple days ago with pca --minimal missingr Today, when I run pca -l --minimal missingr using the new xref it says: Using /var/tmp/patchdiag.xref from Feb/28/13 Host: T2000_hostname (SunOS 5.10/Generic_147147-26/sparc/sun4v) List: missingr-minimal (1/1) Patch IR CR RSB Age Synopsis -- -- - -- --- --- --- 148338 -- 03 R-- 1 SunOS 5.10: s9_brand patch The host has 148161-02 installed because it's in the U11 release. Here is the trace of the patch obsolescence in order, starting from the current recommended through the newest: 139944-01 has the R flag. It was obsoleted by 148161-02 148161-02 does NOT have R flag. It was obsoleted by 148338-03. 148338-03 does NOT have R flag. Based on my understanding, PCA's recommendation to install 148338-03 is not correct when using the --minimal flag. It should have seen that the currently installed version, 148161-02, was already newer than the recommended, 139944-01 version, therefore no newer patch is needed. This behavior occurs in all recent versions of PCA, both development and stable. 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.commailto:neil.brook...@towerswatson.com 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.
