Allan Schaffer (allan)
Thu, 1 May 1997 14:51:48 -0700
Yep.
> 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?
Yes. We found this bug a while back (SCR 416983), it looks like the
prerequisite for 'inst' was misnamed: It should have been
common_static_performer, but ended up common_performer. You're fine
doing a 'rulesoverride on' in this case.
> 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.
I don't know why the last one (replacing performer_eoe.sw.performer1_2)
didn't install if you have the prior versions, but your overall
evaluation is correct.
Allan
--
Allan Schaffer allan++at++sgi.com
Silicon Graphics http://reality.sgi.com/allan
=======================================================================
List Archives, FAQ, FTP: http://www.sgi.com/Technology/Performer/
Submissions: info-performer++at++sgi.com
Admin. requests: info-performer-request++at++sgi.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Aug 10 1998 - 17:55:11 PDT