Thanks to Rainer Heilke and Erek Adams, who each suggested this is a case of public vs. private patches, but that's not it. Erek also suggested that I run 'smpatch get' to be sure that I wasn't just looking at "recommended" in the patchdb. That wasn't it, either, but a very good suggestion! The answer is that my script is looking for the absence of "CURRENT" in the "Latest Revision" column of the output of patchdiag, and if it's not then it will indicate this patch is not current. Here is some output where my script thinks that 108725 needs to be updated: 108714 08 CURRENT CDE 1.4: libDtWidget patch 108723 01 CURRENT SunOS 5.8: /kernel/fs/lofs and /kernel/fs/sparcv9/lofs patch 108725 22 21 SunOS 5.8: st driver patch The answer is, my script needs to be changed so that if the latest revision is not "CURRENT" then test if it's greater than the installed revision. I did too much RTFM -Sal ------------- Begin Forwarded Message ------------- Hi Gurus- So, I run "smpatch" with the 'analyze,' 'download,' 'update,' and 'add' commands to get a list of what needs to be added. Consistently, smpatch does not add a particular patch when explicitly listed via '-x idlist=<file>' but it does work via '-i <patch-id>'. OK, so I can live with that. Now I have an Ultra-5 running the latest-greatest 5.8 according to smpatch, but when I tried to compare it to what I was used to with "patchdiag" I have a list of patches that smpatch didn't even look at, and MANY of the latest patches that smpatch installed are out of date according to patchdiag. So, what gives? Thanks, -Sal ------------- End Forwarded Message ------------- _______________________________________________ sunmanagers mailing list sunmanagers@sunmanagers.org http://www.sunmanagers.org/mailman/listinfo/sunmanagersReceived on Thu Feb 23 18:12:48 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 03 2016 - 06:43:56 EST