Hello Managers -
This is a very late summary of an original post from Jan. 28.
As reported in my first SUMMARY on Jan. 28. My original post
is at the bottom of this message. I believe the problem I had
with trying to install a Patch was due to downloading the patch
without first setting the mode to binary. I will also note, that
if you have multiple tar files on the system, that you make sure that
the tar file provided by DEC is the one that is used for the Patch
installation. The patch removal went
well - I removed all patches on the system with the plan of
installing Patch #6. I was finally able to successfully perform that task
last night, and so far no problems have arisen.
I would like to thank Yaacov Fenster for keeping in touch with me about
what I was doing.
Also I would like to thank Dr. Tom Blinn and
Dr Marco Luchini for their responses to my original post.
Sincerely,
Ron Bowman
Techno-Sciences, Inc.
864-646-4028
864-646-4001(fax)
rdbowma_at_tsi.clemson.edu
----------------------------------------
Original post, and first summary:
Hello Managers -
This is sort of a continuation of my Software Installation
thread from yesterday. I believe the reason for the
incomplete installation notice on some of the software subsets
may have been from the following failed patch attempt. Sorry
about the length.
Questions(contained below):Can I use dupatch to remove a
patch that was not installed successfully? Could I have bypassed
a successful patch with an unsuccessful patch leaving the system
as though no patches had been installed?
Before I took over as admin on the machine the April/May 1997
patch kit 0004 was installed. About the time I took over
in Sept., we tried installing the August 1997 patch kit 0004.
We were never successful, and I now believe it was because we
used the wrong tar program. Anyway, the following files exist
in the /usr/.smdb. directory.
-rw-r--r-- 1 root system 387 Sep 25 11:25 OSFPAT00000000410.ctrl
-rw-r--r-- 1 root system 1103 Sep 25 11:25 OSFPAT00000000410.inv
-rw-r--r-- 1 root system 18 Sep 25 11:25 OSFPAT00000000410.lk
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root system 4985 Sep 25 11:25 OSFPAT00000000410.scp
-rw-r--r-- 1 root system 386 Jul 19 1997 OSFPAT00000003410.ctrl
-rw-r--r-- 1 root system 1103 Jul 19 1997 OSFPAT00000003410.inv
-rw-r--r-- 1 root system 1098 Jan 27 15:24 OSFPAT00000003410.lk
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root system 4985 Jul 19 1997 OSFPAT00000003410.scp
-rw-r--r-- 1 root system 387 Sep 25 11:25 OSFPAT00000006410.ctrl
-rw-r--r-- 1 root system 1103 Sep 25 11:25 OSFPAT00000006410.inv
-rw-r--r-- 1 root system 0 Sep 25 11:25 OSFPAT00000006410.lk
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root system 4985 Sep 25 11:25 OSFPAT00000006410.scp
If I understand what is going on, *0410 files are for the basic DU4.0B,
the *3410 files are for the first patch, and the *6410 are for the second
patch.
All of the patches that are installed are in the *3410.lk file, but And this is
the main question I have:
The *0410.lk file has OSFPAT00000006410 as its only entry, and the *6410.lk file
is empty. So, Have I effectively bypassed the patches associated with the first
patch? What I would like to do is remove(possibly) the failed attempt with the
second patch by running the dupatch remove feature. Is this possible?
The message in /usr/var/adm/patch/log is below(the tar message is what makes me
think we were using the wrong tar program - there are 2 different ones on our
system):
* A new version of patch tools required for patch management
is now being installed on your system.
tar: - : This doesn't look like a tar archive
tar: - : Skipping to next file...
setld:
File copy to system disk failed.
Subset OSFPAT00000006410 may not have been installed properly on your system
but the rest of the installation will continue.
setld:
^GThere were verification errors for "Patch Tools " (OSFPAT00000006410)
dupatch:
Failed to update patch tools.
Thanks in advance for any help you can provide
---------------------------
First summary:Hello Managers -
I will report again on this sometime after friday.
It looks like I will try to remove the patches, and
then re-install the latest one on Friday evening.
I am still open for suggestions as to what happened,
and I have some leads from the following people:
Yaacov Fenster :
Dr. Tom Blinn, and
Dr Marco Luchini
The reason I am posting this message now(in an incomplete
solution format) is the response from Dr Marco Luchini.
This response shows that the second patch file may have
been corrupted, and that is why it did not install.
Thanks to all who replied, and I am still looking for some
information. Plus after my removal try on friday I may have
some more questions, or hopefully I will be able to report my
problem is solved.
Dr Marco Luchini replied:
> think we were using the wrong tar program - there are 2 different ones on our
> system):
>
> * A new version of patch tools required for patch management
> is now being installed on your system.
> tar: - : This doesn't look like a tar archive
> tar: - : Skipping to next file...
> setld:
> File copy to system disk failed.
That's what I thought until I tried and failed with both versions of
tar. I then realised that the Digital patch server is running Ultrix
and it doesn't automatically set "binary" on the transfer. Trying again
explicitly setting "binary" resulted in a slightly different file which
untarred just fine.
Received on Fri Feb 13 1998 - 17:25:50 NZDT