gmane.os.solaris.pca

New release: 20130502-01

Martin Paul — 2013-05-02T09:22:36

A new release of PCA has just been published. Here's a list of new 
features and changes:

  * Do not pass on Recommended flag with --minimal option
  * Correct patch obsoletions from installed patches with --minimal option
  * Fix rare bug of certain patches not showing up with --minimal option
  * Remove link to patch README on wesunsolve.net in HTML output
  * Temporary workaround for problem with Oracle server and wget from 
OpenCSW
  * Whitelist: add 147143, 147144
  * Whitelist: add 147147, 148148, 148027, 148028
  * Whitelist: add 149173, 149174, 149175, 149176
  * Apply check: add 147416, 147419

Update:
   pca --update now

Download:
   http://www.par.univie.ac.at/solaris/pca/installation.html

MD5: 70c76b041938d4d57ba7f529a783011b

Re: PCA selects SPARC patch on X86

Glen Gunselman — 2013-04-26T14:46:44

Looks good.

Thanks,
GlenG

-----Original Message-----
From: pca-bounces< at >lists.univie.ac.at [mailto:pca-bounces< at >lists.univie.ac.at] On Behalf Of Martin Paul
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2013 4:17 AM
To: PCA (Patch Check Advanced) Discussion
Subject: Re: [pca] PCA selects SPARC patch on X86

Am 25.04.2013 23:36, schrieb Glen Gunselman:

Thanks for the report. I've fixed it in the current development release 
of PCA, available from:

   http://www.par.univie.ac.at/solaris/pca/installation.html

Martin.

Re: PCA selects SPARC patch on X86

Martin Paul — 2013-04-26T09:16:32

Am 25.04.2013 23:36, schrieb Glen Gunselman:

Thanks for the report. I've fixed it in the current development release 
of PCA, available from:

   http://www.par.univie.ac.at/solaris/pca/installation.html

Martin.

PCA selects SPARC patch on X86

Glen Gunselman — 2013-04-25T21:36:42

After installing the Solaris 10 CPU_2013-04 on an X4500 I ran pca -list missingrs.  Patch 147416-02 was listed as missing but the x86 version is 147419-02 is installed.

I do not recall seeing this in the past but I do not patch this server often.

I found the following details:

grep 14741 /var/tmp/patchdiag.xref
147416|02|Dec/03/12| |S| |  |Unbundled|all;sparc;|SUNWsefms:6.9.0,REV=2011.11.13.21.31.38;SUNWstkraidsa:6.9.0,REV=2011.11.13.21.31.44;SUNWse6130ui:6.9.0,REV=2011.11.13.21.32.51;SUNWsesscs:6.9.0,REV=2011.11.13.21.32.51;SUNWstkcamcd:6.9.0,REV=2011.11.13.21.32.51;140064-01;140064-02;140064-03;|SunOS 5.9 5.10 CAM 6.9.0 bug fixes.
147417|02|Dec/03/12| |S| |  |Unbundled|||Windows CAM 6.9.0 bug fixes.
147418|02|Dec/04/12| |S| |  |Unbundled|||Linux RHEL SuSE CAM 6.9.0 bug fixes.
147419|02|Dec/03/12| |S| |  |Unbundled|all;i386;|SUNWsefms:6.9.0,REV=2011.11.13.21.31.38;SUNWstkraidsa:6.9.0,REV=2011.11.13.21.31.44;SUNWse6130ui:6.9.0,REV=2011.11.13.21.32.51;SUNWsesscs:6.9.0,REV=2011.11.13.21.42.41;SUNWstkcamcd:6

Re: Oracle webserver has an SSL bug -> incompatible with OpenSSL 1.0

Martin Paul — 2013-04-25T08:23:22

Hi Laurent,

thanks for the info! Please let us know when/if Oracle fixes their server.


As a quick fix I changed PCA to run wget with "--secure-protocol=TLSv1" 
when the wget path contains "csw". That's far from perfect, but it 
should suffice to avoid this issue.

The fix is in the current development release of PCA (20130425-01).

Martin.

Oracle webserver has an SSL bug -> incompatible with OpenSSL1.0

Laurent Blume — 2013-04-25T07:47:46

Hello all,

An heads up:

If you have installed OpenCSW's wget, you might have noticed that for a 
few days, PCA is not working anymore, it cannot download the 
patchdiag.xref file.

This has been analyzed as an issue on the Oracle server side, which 
makes it incompatible with OpenSSL 1.0:

http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/users/2013-April/009568.html

https://www.opencsw.org/mantis/view.php?id=5068

A ticket has been open with Oracle, but well, if somebody here has 
faster access to get it fixed, that'd be nice.

Martin, there is a workaround in the first link that you might consider 
to include in PCA when using OpenCSW's wget.

Laurent

Re: Query regarding patches currently running

Martin Paul — 2013-04-22T10:39:19

Drew,

Am 19.04.2013 17:33, schrieb Drew Skinner:

No, PCA can only download the patches, but these cannot be installed 
with PCA/patchadd. Usually an install script is contained in the 
ZIP-File, and you should always read the included README.


That's unusual - I haven't heard about such an issue in the past. No 
idea why the host OS (and changes to it) would affect [A-Z]LOM. Anybody 
else seen any such weirdness?


I'm not using zones on my systems, so I have zero to none experience in 
patching systems with zones. Maybe if you describe your problems in more 
detail, somebody else can share his thoughts.

Martin.

Re: Query regarding patches currently running

Drew Skinner — 2013-04-19T15:49:58

FYI - Sol 10 installations where ILOM's are freezing:

S10 u2
S10 u4
S10 u10

All the best,

Drew.


On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Drew Skinner <drewsk< at >gmail.com> wrote:

Query regarding patches currently running

Drew Skinner — 2013-04-19T15:33:17

Hi;

While I haven't run into the problem with SUNWastfb - I am encountering
another issue that I haven't seen before.

First, I think I remember seeing that PCA can patch OBP/POST ~
ILOM/ALOM/ELOM. Not sure if that's right (remember I think I saw) <g>

Anyway, I'm using patchdiag.xref from Mar/18/13.

For the systems I have that are listing themselves as downrev (OBP/POST ~
ILOM/ALOM/ELOM) I'm finding that the ILOM's are freezing during the
patching process.

Since I background PCA and reboot later, it might be a few days before ILOM
service is restored. The only other thought I have is that a full power off
/ on may be required to restore them. Any ideas here (I haven't seen this
behaviour before).

Also, I'm seeing with the S10_u11 update that you can't fully update a
system with running zones. There are workarounds I can use, but I'm curious
if the above could be related.

Thanks,


Drew.

Re: "Bad patch installed" and "does not match"

Martin Paul — 2013-04-15T09:14:07

Am 15.04.2013 10:23, schrieb Martin Paul:

Thanks to Martin B. I found the root cause of the problem - all systems 
with Solaris version lower than 10 5/09 are affected. It was this 
release which introduced the new SUNWastfb* packages.

The workaround is to install SUNWastfb* from a newer Solaris 10 
distribution to the old system. Then 142373-03 and 125719-49 will 
install fine.

Don: I guess that's a bug in 125719-49 - it shouldn't require a patch 
for packages which are not available in all Solaris 10 releases.

Martin.

Re: "Bad patch installed" and "does not match"

Martin Paul — 2013-04-15T08:23:09

Am 12.04.2013 20:38, schrieb Frank Langelage:

Basicall, yes. But I guess in this situation it's not really a problem. 
Too bad that nowadays the READMEs for bad patches don't seem to be 
available anymore. In Sun times, one could check them for the reason of 
the patch being marked bad.


Just leave it as it is. 147147-26 supersedes 144560-04 and installs 
newer versions of all files included in 144560-04, so there are no bad 
parts left on your system.


That's the second report I get about this. I don't see the problem on my 
test systems, though.


It means that no package contained in 142373-03 is installed on your 
system, and therefore the patch can't be applied (patchadd will tell you 
the same, if you try to install the patch manually).

As 125719-49 requires 142373-03, it then fails to install.

Can you confirm that neither SUNWastfb nor UNSWastfbcf are installed, 
and let me know which Cluster you installed (Entire Distribution, 
Developer, etc.)? Could it be that you removed packages manually aft

"Bad patch installed" and "does not match"

Frank Langelage — 2013-04-12T18:38:21

Two questions regarding pca output and patches as of today.

pca in verbose mode says today:
------------
osname from uname: SunOS
Reading from /usr/bin/showrev -p  2>/dev/null
patchdiag.xref size: 2303118
Using /var/tmp/patchdiag.xref from Apr/11/13
*Bad patch installed: 144560-04*
SUNWswmt patches: 108987 108988 110763 112951 114194 119254 119255
120201-04 required by 125719: already installed
*142373-03 required by 125719*
*142373-03 required by 125719: does not match*
144500-19 required by 125719: already installed
Host: sb2000 (SunOS 5.10/Generic_148888-02/sparc/sun4u)
List: missing (1/1)

Patch  IR   CR RSB Age Synopsis
------ -- - -- --- --- 
-------------------------------------------------------
125719 48 < 49 RS-   1 X11 6.8.0: Xorg server patch

Looking for 125719-49 (1/1)
Found patch file
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Summary: 1 total, 0 successful, 1 skipped, 0 failed


Trying to get rid of the "Bad patch" I get

root< at >sb2000:/  patchrm 14

Re: Missing sconadm on Solaris 10 1/13

Martin Paul — 2013-03-25T09:16:16

Am 22.03.2013 14:13, schrieb francis picabia:

Same thing here.

We are a small group doing research and education on HPC at the 
University of Vienna. A full (educational) RHEL license costs 50 EUR 
here - once. Software support (ie. patches) for our SPARC T3-2 is about 
(just trying to get a quote for renewal) 2000 EUR *per year*. Go figure.

For Linux, we have to stick to one of the major distributions, as only 
they are supported by the necessary tools, drivers, compilers for HPC 
components.

Marzin.

Re: Missing sconadm on Solaris 10 1/13

Glenn Satchell — 2013-03-22T21:48:26

If you're going down that path, then self-supported CentOS would give you
pretty much the same thing at no charge?

We run CentOS and KVM in our environment and are more than happy with it.
Very stable, lots of howto style documents that can be found using google.

When was the last time you logged a software support question that
couldn't be solved with a bit of google work?

regards,
-glenn

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: Missing sconadm on Solaris 10 1/13

Wickline, Bob (N-STERLING COMPUTERS CORPORATION — 2013-03-22T19:18:11

Only if you have said hardware under Premier Support...


--

cat /dev/null > "SCO Group"

Re: Missing sconadm on Solaris 10 1/13

Lee, Jarrett — 2013-03-22T19:02:50


Gotcha. I misunderstood then. I was under the impression you were discussing RHEL vs. OL and claiming OL did not have an updates only option. My bad.

Re: Missing sconadm on Solaris 10 1/13

francis picabia — 2013-03-22T18:59:33

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Lee, Jarrett
<Jarrett.Lee< at >cedarcrestone.com> wrote:

That link is for Oracle Linux.  I was discussing Solaris update options.

Re: Missing sconadm on Solaris 10 1/13

francis picabia — 2013-03-22T18:57:39

I see only one license agreement for Sol 10/11 x86/sparc download page
and it does not refer to x86 in the agreement.

Re: Missing sconadm on Solaris 10 1/13

Jeremy Loukinas — 2013-03-22T18:37:03

Patches are free for Sol x86 if you use Sun / Oracle hardware, no license
cost.

On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Lee, Jarrett <Jarrett.Lee< at >cedarcrestone.com

Re: Missing sconadm on Solaris 10 1/13

Lee, Jarrett — 2013-03-22T18:28:51

"We pay less than $200 per Dell for annual hardware maintenance.  Oracle is $1000 per server for hardware maintenance.  We pay $60/year for Redhat update access (for University).  Same update access plus support from Oracle is another $1000/year.  There is no option for only software updates with Oracle."

Not entirely true: https://shop.oracle.com/pls/ostore/f?p=dstore:product:0::NO:RP,6:P6_LPI:4510275205461805728469

There's your $120/system, updates only, option. I can't say for certain what we pay for OEL, but it's not $1000/year 


Thanks,
Jarrett
 
 
Jarrett Lee
CedarCrestone, Inc.
UNIX Administrator, Server Technologies
Managed Services
____________________________________________________________
If you are not the intended recipient of this message please treat confidentially, notify the sender and delete it.

Re: Missing sconadm on Solaris 10 1/13

Jeremy Loukinas — 2013-03-22T18:25:22

I also have redhatadmin< at > if that helps.


On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:19 PM, francis picabia <fpicabia< at >gmail.com> wrote: