Rob Mace (mace++at++lum.asd.sgi.com)
Thu, 1 May 1997 16:50:10 -0700
First of all there is no reason to do this. It should not hurt anything,
but it should not help anything either.
> 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 looked into this. The spec file for patch 1392 had a typo. The
dependency should have been on
performer_dev.sw32.common_static_performer
> I "set rulesoverride on" and continue anyway (now I constantly get
> this conflict in swmgr). Is this the correct move?
Since the typo exists, setting rulesoverride is the correct thing.
> 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.
Since you are installing on top of 2.0.x you should not install
performer_eoe.compat32.performer2_0 and performer_eoe.compat.performer2_0.
They are there for when you install patch 1696 on top of Performer 2.1.
> 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.
The 6.2 installation tools contained the following deficiency. A
subsystem in a patch can only follow one other subsystem. It can
not follow subsystem A or subsystem B or subsystem C for example.
Since patch 1696 is meant to be installed on Performer 2.0, 2.0.1,
2.0.2, 2.0.3 or 2.1 and there were subsystem name changes between
these releases this posed a problem. For this reason you might need
to set rulesoverride to on to get all the pieces installed that you
want.
This is the case with patchSG0001696.performer_eoe_compat.performer1_2.
The 1.2 compatibity subsystem changed names between all these Performer
relseases.
> Am I interpreting all this correctly?
Basically yes.
Thanks,
Rob Mace
=======================================================================
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