122663-06 may be bad
Frank Cusack
it, and I'm getting ready for vacation so I don't have time to deal
with it right now.
But, after installing 122663-06, I couldn't boot any zones and I
couldn't create zones.
[root@cookies:~]# zoneadm -z test boot
zoneadm: zone 'test': Failed to initialize privileges: No such file or directory
zoneadm: zone 'test': call to zoneadmd failed
[root@cookies:~]# zonecfg -z test2
test2: No such zone configured
Use 'create' to begin configuring a new zone.
zonecfg:test2> create
zonecfg:test2> set zonepath=/zone/test2
zonecfg:test2> commit
ld.so.1: zonecfg: fatal: relocation error: file /usr/sbin/zonecfg: symbol zonecfg_add_index: referenced symbol not found
zsh: killed zonecfg -z test2
[root@cookies:~]#
I also couldn't backout the patch with patchrm, since it tries to boot
non-running zones, which fails. I copied the files from -05 from
another system and all was well. Case 65195772 if anyone from Sun
cares to look.
The sparc version (122662) is only at -02 for some reason.
-frank
James Carlson
> I also couldn't backout the patch with patchrm, since it tries to boot
> non-running zones, which fails. I copied the files from -05 from
> another system and all was well. Case 65195772 if anyone from Sun
> cares to look.
I don't have access to "case" numbers (that's a support thing), but
what you're lacking here is patch 122659-06, which hasn't been
released.
I agree with you. I don't think that patch was constructed correctly.
I don't see how an old zonecfg could be used with a new libzonecfg, or
vice-versa. It's not a one-way dependency.
The likely solution is to get rid of 122659-06 and fold its contents
into 122663. I don't see any bugs filed on this, so I'll file one.
--
James Carlson, KISS Network <james.d...@sun.com>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
James Carlson
> The likely solution is to get rid of 122659-06 and fold its contents
> into 122663. I don't see any bugs filed on this, so I'll file one.
After a bit of searching, I found it. This is CR 6483014. I'll
update that bug.
Martin Paul
> The likely solution is to get rid of 122659-06 and fold its contents
> into 122663. I don't see any bugs filed on this, so I'll file one.
While we're at it - this seems unusual, too:
Patch IR CR RSB Age Synopsis
------ -- - -- --- --- ------------------------------------------
120901 -- < 03 R-- 289 SunOS 5.10_x86: libzonecfg patch
122663 -- < 06 --- 4 SunOS 5.10_x86: libzonecfg patch
Two patches for libzonecfg, both replacing /usr/lib/libzonecfg.so.1
and /usr/lib/amd64/libzonecfg.so.1. While it's no real problem, as
122663 requires 120901, it's confusing. Maybe the extra files from
120901 should go into 122663, too.
mp.
--
Systems Administrator | Institute of Scientific Computing | Univ. of Vienna
| http://www.par.univie.ac.at/solaris/pca/
Patch Check Advanced | Analyze, download and install patches for Sun Solaris
James Carlson
> In alt.solaris.x86 James Carlson <james.d...@sun.com> wrote:
> > The likely solution is to get rid of 122659-06 and fold its contents
> > into 122663. I don't see any bugs filed on this, so I'll file one.
>
> While we're at it - this seems unusual, too:
>
> Patch IR CR RSB Age Synopsis
> ------ -- - -- --- --- ------------------------------------------
> 120901 -- < 03 R-- 289 SunOS 5.10_x86: libzonecfg patch
> 122663 -- < 06 --- 4 SunOS 5.10_x86: libzonecfg patch
>
> Two patches for libzonecfg, both replacing /usr/lib/libzonecfg.so.1
> and /usr/lib/amd64/libzonecfg.so.1. While it's no real problem, as
> 122663 requires 120901, it's confusing. Maybe the extra files from
> 120901 should go into 122663, too.
That's a different issue and has to do with the way some ZFS-related
changes were done. As I understand it, both are valid and need to
remain separate.
The problem in the original posting isn't just an "unusual" synopsis;
it's an incorrect patch.
Gary Mills
>James Carlson <james.d...@sun.com> writes:
>> The likely solution is to get rid of 122659-06 and fold its contents
>> into 122663. I don't see any bugs filed on this, so I'll file one.
>After a bit of searching, I found it. This is CR 6483014. I'll
>update that bug.
Do SPARC patches have the same problem? I see that 122658-03 has just
appeared. 122662-02 seems to be current. Our Oracle people would be
very unhappy of their zones wouldn't boot.
--
-Gary Mills- -Unix Support- -U of M Academic Computing and Networking-
Frank Cusack
> Do SPARC patches have the same problem? I see that 122658-03 has just
> appeared. 122662-02 seems to be current. Our Oracle people would be
> very unhappy of their zones wouldn't boot.
SPARC (122662-02) is working fine for me.
-frank
Martin Paul
>> Two patches for libzonecfg, both replacing /usr/lib/libzonecfg.so.1
>> and /usr/lib/amd64/libzonecfg.so.1. While it's no real problem, as
>> 122663 requires 120901, it's confusing. Maybe the extra files from
>> 120901 should go into 122663, too.
>
> That's a different issue and has to do with the way some ZFS-related
> changes were done. As I understand it, both are valid and need to
> remain separate.
It's just that past experience has shown that two patches which
install the same files always caused problems sooner or later.
Usually the older patch was published in a newer revision, and
did not include the fixes from the other patch. Look up 113240
and 114497 (both "CDE 1.5: dtsession patch") for a past, real-
world example.
> The problem in the original posting isn't just an "unusual" synopsis;
> it's an incorrect patch.
I know. Just prefer to stop problems from appearing later, than
having to fix them when they manifest.
James Carlson
> In <xoavlknc...@sun.com> James Carlson <james.d...@sun.com> writes:
>
> >James Carlson <james.d...@sun.com> writes:
> >> The likely solution is to get rid of 122659-06 and fold its contents
> >> into 122663. I don't see any bugs filed on this, so I'll file one.
>
> >After a bit of searching, I found it. This is CR 6483014. I'll
> >update that bug.
>
> Do SPARC patches have the same problem? I see that 122658-03 has just
> appeared. 122662-02 seems to be current. Our Oracle people would be
> very unhappy of their zones wouldn't boot.
The corresponding SPARC patches haven't made it out yet.