I'm seeing 126677-02 as obsoleted by 124628-03, which is inside patchdiag.xref... but indeed then there is a multi-level dependency that's not inside patchdiag.xref... :/
Maybe it's the 119534-29 which should directly link to 124628% instead of 126677... -- Thomas Gouverneur _____ _ | ____|___ _ __ (_)_ __ | _| / __| '_ \| \ \/ / | |___\__ \ |_) | |> < |_____|___/ .__/|_/_/\_\ Network |_| SPRL TVA: BE683601811 T: +32 498 23 00 40 W: http://espix.net M: <[email protected]> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 12:33:04 +0200 Martin Paul <[email protected]> wrote: > Thomas Gouverneur wrote: > > Isn't it because the 124628-02 is obsolete that it's not inside the > > patchdiag.xref ? > > The problematic patch is 126677-02 - it's listed as "required" for > 119534-29 and 124630-60 in patchdiag.xref, but there is no > information about any revision of 126677 itself. > > Martin. >
