[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [cobalt-users] Installing Update packages and a related problem
- Subject: Re: [cobalt-users] Installing Update packages and a related problem
- From: Bruce Timberlake <bruce.timberlake@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon Oct 29 16:42:01 2001
- Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
- List-id: Mailing list for users to share thoughts on Cobalt products. <cobalt-users.list.cobalt.com>
"Clark E. Morgan" wrote:
>
> OK lovely helping type people:
>
> How's this for screwy? I decided recently to try to get pop before smtp
> installed for some clients to whom the illusion of e-mail autonomy is
> ridiculously important. Sorry for including a mini-rant; but I'm tired.
>
> At any rate, to my shame, I discovered I was a few packages behind in terms
> of updates and because there were prerequisites, I had to install a few
> other pkg files first. All proceeded well until--
>
> RaQ3-en-OS-Update-4.0.pkg
>
> This install appeared to be going rather well then asked for a
> reboot which I obliged. Upon returning to the admin after the
> reboot, The installed software screen gave me credit for having
> only those packages that the machine started with. I had lost
> all prior updates I had installed, except for the non-system
> webalizer and neomail and the provisioning package installed
> by my hosting company.
No, this is designed behavior. OS Updates incorporate all point
releases since the last OS Update. So the system "knows" that if you
have OS Update 4.0 installed, you also have all the point releases since
OS Update 3.0. And it "cleans up" the "Installed Software" list to make
it easier to see what is actually installed...
> Here's the kicker. These updates (that is to say, the software
> they install, are there as far as I can tell), it's simply the
> systems recognition of this fact that is lacking. I tried moving
> things about in /var/lib/cobalt to see if I could get things
> moving along but the 4.0 update now pukes on the bind package,
> presumably because what's on there is more current than what it
> is trying to install.
Not sure that's the problem. How is the BIND that's installed more
current than the new version the OS Update is trying to install??
> And through it all, the system continues to function normally,
> perhaps even better than before, which is the most amazing thing
> of all.
Not really, once you have the info on how OS Updates are handled vs
point releases... :)
--
Bruce Timberlake
Technology Engineer
Sun Cobalt Server Appliances
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
E: bruce.timberlake@xxxxxxx
U: http://www.sun.com/cobalt/