Patch availability change
in [Solaris]
|
Prev: <Beginner Question> - lu /sst
Next: difference between sun cluster "/dev/did" and "/dev/global" devices
From: David Kirkby on 12 Feb 2010 07:09 On Feb 12, 11:06 am, Martin Paul <m...(a)par.univie.ac.at> wrote: > David Kirkby wrote: > > But I'd also like to know exactly what patches are publicly available. > > As it seems, the question is quickly answered with the new policy: None. > > > I want to get an old version of Solaris, fully patched, then see if > > this software will build. If not, the minimum requirements for the > > installation of Sage will either to be a later version of Solaris, or > > a maintenance contract. That will be a shame, but might be > > inevitable. > > I think stating a certain release of Solaris (e.g. "Solaris 10 8/07") > will be the easiest solution, both for the maintainer and the > prospective user. Why for the prospective user? > The alternative - a possibly long list of patches - can be really > painful to verify. Yes agreed, but if it was "download the latest patch cluster" it would have been quite easy. It seems that is unlikely. > Patches have dependencies and might pull in multiple > kernel patches, patches get obsoleted by other patches which either the > maintainer or the user has to resolve, etc. If it's just one certain > patch which is required, listing that might be better though, as > upgrading to a newer release sometimes isn't possible (despite Live > Upgrade). I was hoping it was just the patch to fix the release of gcc shipped with 03/05 (patch 123647-04). I'm not sure if that is however true. It could have been another problem. I want to investigate that. I thnk 123647-02 is actually sufficient, but would need to check that. If not, it will have to be something that at least makes gcc not broken. I suppose one could install a binary gcc, but it would be good if gcc 3.4.3 could be made sufficiently able to build any later gcc from source. Dave
From: Andreas F. Borchert on 12 Feb 2010 07:32 On 2010-02-12, Martin Paul <map(a)par.univie.ac.at> wrote: > On the other hand, a different problem showed up for me this morning: > SunSolve has forgotten about my support contract, it's not listed on the > "Update Account" subpage on sunsolve.sun.com anymore. Re-adding it > doesn't work either, even though there's no error. I'm not alone with that: > > http://www.mail-archive.com/pca(a)lists.univie.ac.at/msg01612.html I've observed the same problem today. And we hat similar issues in the past. This gets particularly annoying when due to this calls cannot be opened and urgent security patches not downloaded. We are paying customers and we find this painful. Andreas.
From: Martin Paul on 12 Feb 2010 08:31 David Kirkby wrote: > On Feb 12, 11:06 am, Martin Paul <m...(a)par.univie.ac.at> wrote: >> I think stating a certain release of Solaris (e.g. "Solaris 10 8/07") >> will be the easiest solution, both for the maintainer and the >> prospective user. > > Why for the prospective user? Maybe I chose the wrong word (English is not my native language)? What I meant was "future" or "possible" user. Or just leave off the adjective :) > I was hoping it was just the patch to fix the release of gcc shipped > with 03/05 (patch 123647-04). If it's just that patch that would be great, as it doesn't have any dependencies. Martin. -- SysAdmin | Institute of Scientific Computing, University of Vienna PCA | Analyze, download and install patches for Solaris | http://www.par.univie.ac.at/solaris/pca/
From: Richard B. Gilbert on 12 Feb 2010 10:28 Martin Paul wrote: > David Kirkby wrote: >> On Feb 12, 11:06 am, Martin Paul <m...(a)par.univie.ac.at> wrote: >>> I think stating a certain release of Solaris (e.g. "Solaris 10 8/07") >>> will be the easiest solution, both for the maintainer and the >>> prospective user. >> >> Why for the prospective user? > > Maybe I chose the wrong word (English is not my native language)? What I > meant was "future" or "possible" user. Or just leave off the adjective :) There's nothing wrong with your English. "prospective" is correct! pro-spec-tive adj. 1. Likely to happen; expected 2. Likely to become or be: a prospective client (From "The American Heritage Dictionary" Second College Edition, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston 1985) I wish some of our "native speakers" wrote as well as you do!! A significant number seem to have slept through spelling and grammar classes! (I did too but at least I use a spelling checker!)
From: Tim Bradshaw on 12 Feb 2010 10:58
On 2010-02-10 21:07:36 +0000, jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com said: > So what does the number of CPU's in a V440 have to do with OS patches? Per socket licensing is a lot friendlier than per core, which tends to be the norm. |