FAQ & patch 1696 - need installation clarification

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Scott McMillan (scott++at++ht.com)
Thu, 1 May 1997 12:06:10 -0400 (EDT)

pfSwmgrs:

I used to have 2.0.2 (1347 and 1392) installed and I wanted to upgrade to
Performer 2.0.4 complete with N32 static libs and the compatibility DSO's. I
removed all the Performer patches, and went back to my IRIX 6.2 CD to install
the necessary/additional base subsystems (at this point I have a Performer
2.0 DEV and a Performer 2.0.1 EOE). When I go to reinstall patch 1392 on my
system it complains about the following:

----------------------------------------------------------
Conflicts:

Patch patchSG0001392.dev_sw32.common_static_performer does not have
base subsystem performer_dev.sw32.common_performer version 1009000150
to 1232792133 installed.

-----------------------------------------------------------

I have not been able to find performer_dev.sw32.common_performer but I
did find performer_dev.sw32.common_static_performer which "seems" to be
the correct dependency. ^^^^^^

My versions -n output gives the following:

I performer_dev.sw32.common_static_performer 1009000170 Performer2.0
                                  GL-independent Static Libraries (n32)

I "set rulesoverride on" and continue anyway (now I constantly get
this conflict in swmgr). Is this the correct move?

Now I want to install patch 1696 (Performer 2.0.4 EOE).
It won't install the following:
      patchSG0001696.performer_eoe_compat32.performer2_0
      patchSG0001696.performer_eoe_compat.performer2_0
      patchSG0001696.performer_eoe_compat.performer1_2

because I don't have the following (respectively):
      performer_eoe.compat32.performer2_0 (1009000170 to 1263370534)
      performer_eoe.compat.performer2_0 (1009000170 to 1263370534)
      performer_eoe.compat.performer1_2 (1009000170 to 1263370534)

As I understand them, the release notes say the first two are for 2.1
installations. Although, I haven't actually found any comments that say the
aren't for 2.0.1 installations, I assume I do not need them in my
configuration. For the last, however, I do have
performer_eoe.sw.performer1_2 (123279213) Performer 1.2 Compatibility DSOs
which I assume covers the last one.

Am I interpreting all this correctly?

Thanks,
scott

-- 
  Scott McMillan  |    HT Medical, Inc.   | Developing medical VE's
   scott++at++ht.com   |   http://www.ht.com   | surgical simulations
 Ph: 301-984-3706 |6001 Montrose Rd., #902| and surgery simulation
Fax: 301-984-2104 |  Rockville, MD 20852  | creation tools.


=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP:  http://www.sgi.com/Technology/Performer/
            Submissions:  info-performer++at++sgi.com
        Admin. requests:  info-performer-request++at++sgi.com

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Aug 10 1998 - 17:55:10 PDT

This message has been cleansed for anti-spam protection. Replace '++at++' in any mail addresses with the '@' symbol.