On 3/28/06, Dave Miner <Dave.Miner at sun.com> wrote: > Mike Gerdts wrote: > > On 3/28/06, Casper.Dik at sun.com <Casper.Dik at sun.com> wrote: > >>> Is it safe to simply add the few packages that are sun4v or T2000 > >>> specific to a sun4u system (15k) to enable building a single sparc > >>> flar? I'm not asking for an in-depth analysis here, just wondering if > >>> you have a strong gut feeling one way or another. I *really* want to > >>> have one sparc flar. > >> I believe that this was possible before. > >> > >> (But note that our patch tools were broken for a while which regards > >> to multiple versions of the same package which is what will happen) > >> > >> Casper > > > > I just noticed another snag on this one. It seems as though > > flarcreate does not properly recognize which architectures are > > available (or I got sun4v onto the disk in the wrong way...) > > > > As a quick and dirty test, I took a V240 that I had just imaged with a > > S10 1/06 SUNWCXall flar. I then... > > > > # cd $media/Solaris_10/Product > > # pkgadd -d . *.v > > # flarcreate -SHc -n testflar /var/tmp/testflar > > > > In the header of /var/tmp/testflar appears the line: > > > > content_architectures=sun4u > > > > I'm sure that's grabbed directly out of uname; cross-architecture flar's > aren't really accommodated by the current design, as I recall.
I did some more digging on this. In /usr/sbin/flarcreate we can see how content_architectures is created. Notice that it will make use of /var/sadm/system/admin/.platform. The flar I created with SUNWCXall on a 15k contains: PLATFORM_GROUP=sun4u INST_ARCH=sparc PLATFORM_NAME=SUNW,SPARCstation-fusion PLATFORM_ID=SUNW,SPARCstation-fusion IN_PLATFORM_GROUP=sun4u PLATFORM_NAME=FJSV,GP PLATFORM_ID=FJSV,GP IN_PLATFORM_GROUP=sun4u PLATFORM_NAME=FJSV,GPUU PLATFORM_ID=FJSV,GPUU IN_PLATFORM_GROUP=sun4u PLATFORM_NAME=SUNW,Ultra-Enterprise-10000 PLATFORM_ID=SUNW,Ultra-Enterprise-10000 IN_PLATFORM_GROUP=sun4u If I add the following line to the end: PLATFORM_GROUP=sun4v Then the flash archive header says: content_architectures=sun4u,sun4v I don't have a T2000 that I can test a fresh installation on, but when I create a boot environment with live upgrade, it begins to extract the archive. In my first run at this it complained about a zone that I had configured. I've uninstalled that zone and have restarted the luupgrade. This begs the questions: Is this a design decision or a bug? Is this currently and over the next year so far out of the norm that it will be poorly tested and should be avoided? (My guess is that as people start ramping up on sun4v platforms they will be requesting exactly what I am after. As I recall, sun4m was pretty obsolete by the time that live upgrade was introduced so this has not been a major topic thus far.) Mike -- Mike Gerdts http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/
