Hi Adding Narendra Kumar as Narendra tested a modified SUNWsibi in the miniroot
Enda Angela Byrne - Solaris Sustaining wrote: > Hi All, > > I wanted to point out that we need to fix this issue now with the > KU as we are about to rejuvenate the KU at the end of Update 3. > This KU must be able to install in the miniroot since all future > new KUs will require this old one. > > I am adding Peter Harvey to this thread as he has picked up a customer > P1 bug on this > - relating to the inability to install an SBD KU onto an update 2 > miniroot. > > Peter, > > Please share the bugID with us. > > Also below is snippets from this thread which you will find useful > > Angela > > > James Carlson wrote On 10/04/06 14:55,: > >>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. ;-} >> > > > http://monaco.sfbay/detail.jsf?cr=6478159 > > Sarah Jelinek wrote On 10/04/06 14:51,: > >>>Biut SUNWsibi has changed from FCS to u1 and again for U3, so what rev >>>of SUNWsibi do we ship in say KU 118855-29 for instance? >> >>I don't know.. I hadn't realized this. >> >> >>>I should be able to patch my U2 miniroot with a KU that will also >>>apply to my U3 miniroot ( at some point down the line ) >>>But SUNWsibi is different in u2 to u3 miniroot. ( at least build 5 of >>>u3 anyway ) >> >>Agreed. But, right now we cannot patch the miniroot with patches that >>overwrite critical miniroot files. >> >>Please file an RFE to track this issue. I can add the appropriate Caiman >>keywords so that we track it as part of this work. I don't think this is >>a bug. It is the design of the existing miniroot that is causing this >>limitation. The software is working as designed, perhaps badly, but it >>is working as it has worked for a long time. The redesign of the >>miniroot to not be special will take some work. >> >>thanks, >>sarah >>*** > > > James Carlson wrote On 10/04/06 14:27,: > >>Casper.Dik at Sun.COM writes: >> >> >>>The miniroot is build by install the package SUNWsibi on top of >>>the already installed packages. >> >>[...] >> >> >>>*OR* we need to restructure the miniroot such that it boots without >>>having to replace any files. >> >> >>That's the architecturally correct answer. The current design of >>SUNWsibi violates the packaging standards (PSARC 1991/061), lacks the >>required interface contracts for the private bits it modifies, and is >>generally not well-designed. >> >>This particular accident is a direct result of not maintaining our own >>standards, and that needs to be fixed, regardless of the possibility >>of a workaround (shipping SUNWsibi to be forcibly installed after any >>patch) for this one failure. >> >> >>(Skeptics of the process sometimes ask me for examples of instances >>where ARC review is both required and would help avoid expensive >>problems down the road. I think this one would make a good entry.) > > > > > > Sarah Jelinek wrote On 10/04/06 14:12,: > >>Or... we don't make the miniroot 'special'. That would help this >>situation a lot. >> >>sarah >>**** >>Sarah Jelinek wrote: >> >> >>>So, I have followed most of this patching in the minrroot thread. I >>>have some comments to add: >>> >>>The miniroot is 'special' and owned by install. I agree that perhaps >>>it shouldn't be special, but it is. >>> >>>If you read the man page for patchadd -C it says that you should only >>>install patches that are recommended for the miniroot, such as >>>install-related patches, like pkg commands, etc..this is a very >>>limited set of patches. >>> >>>Now, I agree that this should include other patches. But, to fix this >>>we have to do some engineering. There are a few choices I can see >>>regarding patching the miniroot: >>> >>>1. patches must account for this *if* they want to be able to patch >>>the miniroot. That is not to replace important, and required miniroot >>>files that are necessary for booting and installing. And do the right >>>thing to include these files as transfer files to the system during >>>the install process. >>> >>>Or >>> >>>2. We provide tools that 'fix up' the miniroot after applying patches >>>that may alter its environment in such a way that it is no longer the >>>miniroot we need to install. >>> >>>Or ? other ideas welcome. >>> >>>thanks, >>>sarah >>>**** > >
