Why do some patches report The patch XXX makes the kernel unstable
Some patches report on installation with smpatch
The patch 119252-13 makes the kernel unstable, is obsolete or is forbidden by policy.
The patch 119280-07 makes the kernel unstable, is obsolete or is forbidden by policy.
Theres nothing particularly noteworthy mentioned about the patches in their README files.
Its a different message than we get from single user patches or interactive patches.
They don't sound like the kind of thing that would make the kernel unstable.
And in that case, surely they should be single user reboot immediately.
If their obsolete then why are they turning up in smpatch analyze.
And if their against policy, what policy is it?
I havent noticed any particular problems from forcing them in with a manual smpatch -i
I just wondered whats special about them.
Its a bit annoying having to add them manually...
# 1
Hi.
the first patch has special install instructions, so smpatch should not be installing it.
The second patch, I'm not sure about. I can't see anything unusual about this in the patch description. Could you post the output from 'smpatch get' - there may be something in your patchpro.install.types values which is causing smpatch to flag this patch
# 2
Its all at the default values.
talwood# smpatch get
patchpro.backout.directory-""
patchpro.baseline.directory-/var/sadm/spool
patchpro.download.directory-/var/sadm/spool
patchpro.install.types -rebootafter:reconfigafter:standard
patchpro.patch.sourcehttp://bondi.anu.edu.au:3816/solarishttps://getupdates1.sun.com/
patchpro.patchset-current
patchpro.proxy.host -""
patchpro.proxy.passwd********
patchpro.proxy.port -8080
patchpro.proxy.user -""
# 4
I have the same issue with these patches (both the x86 and sparc forms).
BTW rather than this alarming message it would be better if smpatch simply reported that there were special requirements and the patch had to be installed manually. Of course then you have to know to unpack the jar file, read the README and follow the instructions.
As for the special install instructions for 119252-13, I'm not a sys-admin and I haven't got a clue what the mini-root is or how to patch it or use it. :(
# 8
I note that the latest versions of 119253/62 still have this problem.
UpdateManager 1.0.9 flags it as a "download only" patch, but still allows you to select it to install and then the install fails. Does "download only" mean "updatemanager will download this but you need to follow the manual installation instructions in the readme"? If so then the "icon legend" should mention this.
How is the end-user (not a trained sys-admin) supposed to understand how to deal with these sorts of patches ? The information in the readme just leaves me wondering what on earth it is I'm supposed to do. Taking care of this is what I expect updatemanager to do!
