Re: [Fwd: v5.2.2.4 patch on Solaris]

2004-04-14 16:59:04
Subject: Re: [Fwd: v5.2.2.4 patch on Solaris]
From: "William F. Colwell" <bcolwell AT DRAPER DOT COM>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 16:58:26 -0400


I just tried installing using the -R option and it worked fine.

I install tsm to the default directory and run the library manager from it.
Then I install to other directories and run server in those; I currently have 4
alternate installations.

The command I used is -

pkgadd -a /opt/tsmmisc/adminfile -R /opt/tsminst/1a -d $IN

where $IN is the directory with the packages in it.  I get prompted
to enter a base directory.

Hope this helps,

Bill Colwell
617 258 1550

At 01:30 PM 4/14/2004, you wrote:
>To shed more light on this situation, it looks like it depends on
>whether or not you do a pkgadd with the '-R' option (which we do).
>The license check is only looking for the license file (status.dat)
>in the BASEDIR (default is /opt) directory. Can't change either
>the checkinstall file or the pkginfo file because the file sizes
>and file checksums are checked as well. Changing the installation
>from /var/local/opt to /opt isn't an option.
>I would then expect this patch to install successfully for
>default installation paths (/opt) and fail for anything else.
>So my question has changed somewhat, has anyone been able to
>install the Solaris v5.2.2.4 server patch in a directory other
>than the default?
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: v5.2.2.4 patch on Solaris
>Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 13:12:45 -0400
>From: Gretchen L. Thiele <gretchen AT princeton DOT edu>
>To: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
>Has anybody successfully installed this patch yet (yup, I realize that
>it just came out last night)? I was upgrading from v5.2.2.3 to v5.2.2.4,
>when it gave me the "license hasn't been accepted yet" message. It
>further instructs to remove the partial install, install v5.2.2.0
>(which I did ages ago), accept the license and then apply the patch.
>No go, even going back to v5.2.2.0 and then forward to v5.2.2.4.
>Bad package assembly? The README says that it should install over a
>v5.2.2.x base where the v5.2.2.0 license has been accepted. By the
>way, this is Solaris 9.
>Gretchen Thiele
>Princeton University

Bill Colwell
C. S. Draper Lab
Cambridge Ma.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>