Isn't it because the 124628-02 is obsolete that it's not inside the patchdiag.xref ?
-- Thomas Gouverneur _____ _ | ____|___ _ __ (_)_ __ | _| / __| '_ \| \ \/ / | |___\__ \ |_) | |> < |_____|___/ .__/|_/_/\_\ Network |_| SPRL TVA: BE683601811 T: +32 498 23 00 40 W: http://espix.net M: <[email protected]> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:11:28 +0200 Martin Paul <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Don and all, > > In the READMEs of the new patches 124630-60 and 119534-29 a note has > been added: > > NOTE: The list of 'patches required with this patch' (above) has > been modified from the list specified at patch creation time. The > reason for the modification is that one or more of the required > patches was either never released or withdrawn after its release. The > following substitutions (which are guaranteed to satisfy the original > requirements) were therefore made: > > 124628-03 replaces 126677-02 > > This replacement is a good thing, but unfortunately it has only taken > place in the README and not in the "patchinfo" files nor in > patchdiag.xref - those still refer to 126677-02 (which, as the note > says, has never been released). Now PCA has always taken care of that > by internally replacing 126677-02 with 124628-03 when resolving > dependencies, so there's no new problem. > > It would be nice, though, now that the problem has been noticed, to > fix this issue in all places (patch README, patchinfo, > patchdiag.xref) to make this consistent again. > > The same applies to the corresponding x86 patches, BTW (non-existant > 126678 required by 124631 and 119535). And just for completeness, > here is the list of all non-existant patches to be found as required > patches in patchdiag.xref, and how they are taken care of in PCA: > > ($r eq "125077-02") && ($r="120011-09"); # 119757 > ($r eq "125078-02") && ($r="120012-10"); # 119758 > ($r eq "125486-01") && ($r="120011-14"); # 126206 > ($r eq "125487-01") && ($r="120012-14"); # 126207 > ($r eq "114431-03") && ($r="117172-17"); # 116473 > > Read like this: Patch 119757 requires 125077-02, which doesn't exist, > so it should require 120011-09 instead. > > Martin. >
