Hi Bernd,
It is not a good idea to rely on the exit codes of patchadd. Atleast the
man page seems to indicate that is the case.
EXIT STATUS
The following exit values are returned:
0 Successful completion.
>0 An error occurred.
But it would be good to have some sort of a standard.
As for a description of patchadd behaviour in S10, Vasilly's Arabian
Nights series ;) in the thread below will be of great help:
http://www.opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=15730&tstart=0
HTH.
Cheers,
Ananth
Bernd Schemmer wrote:
> I'm looking for a good documentation of the patchadd behaviour in Solaris 10
> (compared to Solaris 9)
>
> While patching our new Solaris 10 installations with patchadd for example we
> found that the installation of some patches incorrectly ended with the return
> code 1 of patchadd.
>
> We expected the return code of patchadd for these patches to be either 2 or 8
> (like in Solaris 9).
>
> We can work around this by adding the parameter -t to the patchadd call.
> After doing this patchadd returns the correct return code. But I don't know
> what other implications are triggered by this parameter.
>
> Another work around could be to use the patchadd backend,
> /usr/lib/patch/patchadd, instead of patchadd. This also returns with the
> correct return code. But again I don't know what we will miss if using
> /usr/lib/patch/patchadd instead of patchadd.
>
>
> Therefor it would be really useful to have a indepth description of the
> packadd behaviour in Solaris 10.
>
> There's an entry on sunsolve about this behaviour but without a solution:
>
> http://sunsolve8.sun.com/search/document.do?assetkey=1-1-6392440-1&searchclause=patchadd%2420Solaris%242010
>
>
> regards
>
> Bernd
>
>
> This message posted from opensolaris.org
> _______________________________________________
> install-discuss mailing list
> install-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/install-discuss
