Frank Middleton wrote: > Set PKG_DUMP_STATS, but it didn't work because the install failed due to > 13533. Neither 13533 nor the notes in the announcement said to add user > upnp /before/ doing the update! pkg is asking for a bug to be filed, > but presumably this is a known problem, so was the Traceback expected?
The traceback on a missing user is a known bug. > Oddly, there already was a upnp entry in /etc/groups. May I suggest that > 13533 be amended to say that "user upnp should be added before doing an > image-update else the update will fail with a Python traceback"? Feel free to do just that, if you like. > Were the two warnings (see below) expected and are they harmless? The non-empty directory warnings? They are likely harmless; you should check the lost+found directories where they were moved and make sure that nothing there is important. As far as anyone told the packaging system, they weren't. > Is there an ETA for 6353? No. It's not targeted for the next release, as aside from a few recent hiccups, it's something that can be done manually, even if unsupported. Full support is going to require the rework of /var/pkg that's pending, for better support for zones, caching client servers, and service discovery. Danek _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
