>From sfwnv-discuss-bounces at opensolaris.org Wed Mar 12 05:57:19 2008
>Running checkproto on my workspace gives the following output:
>
>error: SUNWmemcached: hardlink to non-existent file:
>usr/lib/memcached=/usr/lib/isaexec
>warning: SUNWmemcachedr: duplicate entry for etc/security/auth_attr -
>ignored
>error: Errors found in
>/export/home/victor/memcached/usr/src/pkgdefs/SUNWmemcachedr/prototype_com
>warning: SUNWmemcachedr: duplicate entry for etc/security/prof_attr -
>ignored
>error: Errors found in
>/export/home/victor/memcached/usr/src/pkgdefs/SUNWmemcachedr/prototype_com
>
>The hardlink error there's nothing to do about I believe?
Well if that's true you're also not putting this back :)
It's upset because, as it says, you're linking to a file that's not
in the proto area. And since /usr/lib/isaexec is in ON not sfw, that's
not surprising. First I'd guess that should be a relative link anyway
or install isn't going to be happy. But then I'd wonder if it's really
legal to make a hard link to that binary in the first place? I don't
even see a man page for it on my desktop, so I'd wonder if it's really
consolidation-private to ON (but haven't looked in the ARC database).
If it's not, you'd have to copy it from somewhere into the proto area (ick).
But you might also see if a symlink works, or perhaps just write your
own given isaexec(3C) is documented and stable.
>The two "duplicate entry" warnings are confusing. I cannot see why this
>is happening.
because you can't deliver the same file in multiple packages, and
protocmp doesn't know that you aren't really because you're using
a class-action script to do the install. I think this is already
done for exec_attr, as long as you're doing what other packages
do with that it might be that you just need to add an exception.
Which isn't the ideal thing but it's probably simplest.
>Another thing I noticed is that when installing the SUNWmemcachedr
>package multiple times on the same system the header lines between CDDL
>HEADER START and CDDL HEADER END are added the same number of times to
>/etc/security/auth_attr and /etc/security/prof_attr. Is something wrong
>with the i.rbac script?
I don't know, did you check bugster? It could be that we're just using
an older i.rbac script since I see a bug that might be this fixed
a while ago in ON:
D 1.12 06/02/16 17:08:43 X 13 12 00024/00011/00348
MRs:
COMMENTS:
6365088 New CDDL header gets added to /etc/security/exec_attr every upgrade
You may want to upgrade the sfw copy of i.rbac, I think there may be
a bug for that already.
Mike
