SUMMARY: What to do about failed patch installations

From: Bennet Fauber <bfauber_at_ucdavis.edu>
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 12:23:28 -0800

Hello,

Thanks to

Jim Belonis <belonis_at_dirac.phys.washington.edu>
"Luchini, Marco" <Marco.Luchini_at_acco-uk.co.uk>
"Frank Wortner" <frank_at_bondnet.com>

for their responses.

The short answer to the general question "How do I force patches to
install" is to run dupatch and do a baseline. The caveat is to know for
certain that the files that are affected should be replaced by those in the
patch kit and are not customized for local use.

There does seem to be contradictory information on the sys_check web page
about how to keep it current. In one place it recommends checking back
often to obtain updates, whereas later on it says that installing the
updates obtained from the web page is not the "preferred method" and are
installed in an alternate location, hence won't be available to other
programs that might call sys_check.

The original post appears below.

                        -- Bennet

>To: tru64-unix-managers_at_ornl.gov
>Hello,
>
>Sorry for the lengthy message. Not knowing what to include, I thought it
>would be better to err on the side of too much information.
>
>I installed Patch Kit 5 on a couple of 4.0D machines, and several patches
>failed to install on one. I'd like to ask what should be done about them.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>Patch 364.02 Sendmail -- I assume this failed because I have a locally
>compiled version of sendmail 8.9.3.
>
>0 204800 47726 0 4 104755 1/6/99 425 f ./usr/sbin/mailq
>0 204800 00000 0 4 104755 1/6/99 425 l ./usr/sbin/newaliases \
> ./usr/sbin/mailq
>0 204800 00000 0 4 104755 1/6/99 425 l ./usr/sbin/sendmail \
> ./usr/sbin/mailq
>0 204800 00000 0 4 104755 1/6/99 425 l ./usr/sbin/smtpd \
> ./usr/sbin/mailq
>
>Am I reading this aright that it is creating /usr/sbin/mailq, then adding
>links to it as newaliases, sendmail, and smtpd? They all have the same
>size, date/time, show 4 links, and have the same cksum
>
>-rwxr-xr-x 4 root bin 565248 Nov 11 16:23 mailq
>-rwxr-xr-x 4 root bin 565248 Nov 11 16:23 newaliases
>-rwxr-xr-x 4 root bin 565248 Nov 11 16:23 sendmail
>-rwxr-xr-x 4 root bin 565248 Nov 11 16:23 smtpd
>
># cksum mailq -> 2101018266 565248 mailq
># cksum sendmail -> 2101018266 565248 sendmail
># cksum newaliases -> 2101018266 565248 newaliases
># cksum smtpd -> 2101018266 565248 smtpd
>
>Should I manually create the links to the other names from my version of
>sendmail, or is there something that was compiled into the version that
>came with the patch kit that might have been left out of mine?
>-------------------------------------------------------
>Patch 607.00 sys_check -- This failed, no doubt, because I had installed it
>from the web page. I've since uninstalled version 111 and reinstalled the
>web page version (SYSCHECK114). I assume that I should uninstall sys_check
>prior to the next patch kit being applied if I want to get back in sync
>with the patch kit versions and avoid the load failure again.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>Patch 503.00 Corrupt rc.config file -- This gave a message to the effect
>that the file
>
>/usr/sbin/exclOpen: its origin cannot be identified.
>
>On the system for which it did not fail
>
>-rwxr-xr-x 1 bin bin 16384 Jul 10 07:06 /usr/sbin/exclOpen
>
>whereas on the system for which it did fail
>
>-rwxr-xr-x 1 bin bin 16384 Aug 19 14:09 exclOpen
>
>both systems used to be 4.0B machines, both were updated to 4.0D recently.
>The output of cksum and sum on the two files differ. I looked at the
>
>patch_kit/DIGITAL_UNIX_V4.0D/kit/instctrl/OSFPAT00050300425.inv
>
>file, and it shows two files on the inventory list:
>
>0 16384 32926 3 4 100755 7/10/99 425 f ./usr/sbin/exclOpen
>0 4569 00162 3 4 100755 7/10/99 425 f ./usr/sbin/rcmgr
>
>How do I go about getting this patch resynced so it won't skip over it next
>time around? I can copy the files from the machine on which it installed,
>but I assume there is some sort of setld database entry that needs to get
>updated.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>Patch 682.00 NFS problems -- This appears, from looking at the
>
>patch_kit/DIGITAL_UNIX_V4.0D/kit/instctrl/OSFPAT00068200425.inv
>
>file to have wanted to change two files:
>
>0 6521 55072 3 4 100750 10/1/99 425 f ./sbin/init.d/nfs
>0 73728 02846 3 4 100755 10/1/99 425 f ./usr/sbin/rpc.pcnfsd
>
>There are some big differences in the nfs startup script. How can I force
>this to update?
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>Patch 707 -- Security (SSRT0567U, SSRT0583U, SSRT0590U)
>
>0 57344 28523 0 4 104755 10/1/99 425 f ./usr/bin/at
>0 32768 54825 3 4 100755 1/6/99 425 f ./usr/bin/atq
>0 32768 03999 3 4 100755 1/6/99 425 f ./usr/bin/atrm
>0 40960 02812 0 4 104755 10/1/99 425 f ./usr/bin/crontab
>0 8999 04681 3 4 100644 10/1/99 425 f \
> ./usr/lib/nls/msg/en_US.ISO8859-1/cron.cat
>0 65536 30717 3 4 100755 10/1/99 425 f ./usr/sbin/cron
>none OSFPAT00070700425
>0 2738 34910 3 4 100744 1/6/99 425 f \
>./usr/var/adm/cron/.mrg..queuedefs
>0 2458 43852 3 4 100755 1/6/99 425 f \
>./usr/var/adm/cron/.new..queuedefs
>
>It looks like the at file was changed when I applied the patch contained in
>CSC-SSRT0583U.tar, though none of the other files in the failed patch 707
>appear there. Can this be forced to install in its entirety?
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>Patch 748 -- Security
>
>0 73728 06176 0 4 104755 7/10/99 425 f ./usr/bin/mh/inc
>0 40960 51483 0 4 104755 10/1/99 425 f ./usr/bin/mh/msgchk
>0 172032 58605 3 4 100755 7/10/99 425 f ./usr/bin/mh/msh
>0 40960 11459 3 4 100755 7/10/99 425 f ./usr/bin/mh/pick
>0 245760 27079 3 4 100444 10/1/99 425 f ./usr/shlib/libmh.so
>
>It looks like the mh/inc and shlib/libmh.so files were changed when I
>applied the patch contained in CSC-SSRT0583U.tar, though none of the other
>files in the failed patch 748 appear there. Can this be forced to install
>in its entirety?
>-------------------------------------------------------

<----- oOo ----->
Bennet Fauber
Social Science Data Service
University of California, Davis
Received on Thu Dec 09 1999 - 20:25:04 NZDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed Nov 08 2023 - 11:53:40 NZDT