James Carlson wrote: > Enda O'Connor ( Sun Micro Systems Ireland) writes: > >>I was not aware of this particular mess. For now I'm not too convinced >>of how to fix this in the short term ( at least S10 time anyway ), ie >>customers applying patches such as the KU to their miniroot. >>I guess we could include some rev of SUNWsibi, but this is ugly and as >>SUNWsibi is different from FCS to 1/06 and again in U3, not clear what >>implications this would have. > > > I agree; it's not clear. We could add SUNWsibi to the releases > (putting it somewhere convenient, such as Solaris_10/Tools/SUNWsibi), > and include README notes for those patching the miniroot that > describes how to use it. > > An alternative might be to have a special form of the original patch > -- intended for miniroot use only -- that merely has those 'special' > files excised. > > Both have risks, and it'd be good to limit the amount of time we do > something like that. > > >>I suggest a bug/RFE to cover the whole implementation of SUNWsibi to >>cover the wider picture, I can log that, but we need to agree some short >>term fix/hack for now as well. ( either that or not miniroot patching >>for KU's, which is not good ) > > > Thanks for logging the bug. ;-} >
I have logged RFE 6478159 Use of SUNWsibi in the build process for the miniroot breaks patching of miniroot via patchadd -C Please feel free to update as appropiate This RFE is more for the long term goal of fixing miniroot build process with respect to SUNWsibi. Still to agree some sort of fix for short term ie 1 Infodoc with downlaod instructions for SUNWsibi appropriate to release, and instructions for install of same etc. 2 Some hackery in the affected patches to re-apply no-op versions of the files, via postpatch and pkgcond etc, not looking attractive to me at any rate:-) I'm tending to go with 1 as this point? Enda
