installpatch versus 103667-09/bind patch
2007-12-25 9:53:00
Ray Trzaska <rtrzaska@uk.mdis.com>
"Auteria Wally Winzer Jr." <wally.winzer@ChampUSA.COM>
Reto Lichtensteiger <rali@meitca.com>
Mark Baldwin <mark.baldwin@aur.alcatel.com>
ccinternet__admin_at_ccinternet@putnaminv.com
Chris Marble <cmarble@orion.ac.hmc.edu>
Francois Leclerc <leclerc@austin.apc.slb.com>
Casper Dik <casper@holland.Sun.COM>
Please accept my apolgies if I missed anyone; we <grin> had a serious mail
failure last night, and some messages may have gone into the ozone.
Most respondents pointed out (very nicely) that installing 2.5 patches on
a 2.5.1 system wasn't supposed to work, and that if we tried installing
103663-11 instead of 103667 we could expect to be more successful.
A number of people suggested that, without a doubt, the recommended patches
should be installed; one slightly more urgent than usual response was, " My
GOD! You *need* to install the recommended patch clusters, especially for
an Internet mail server!!!!! To date, there are a *ton* not at all
concerned about security, having your machine crash after 200+ days of
uptime, year 2000 problems, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc then, by all means,
don't install any patches."
Okay, point taken.
A few people recommended installing the ISC versions of sendmail and bind.
Since we have some internal advocates for that solution, I expect that we
will wind up doing exactly that before we are through.
Thanks to all for their help.
Original message follows:
> We've got an Ultra 170 we'd like to turn into our primary sendmail host.
> Running standalone with Solaris 2.5.1 HW 4/97, no patches applied to
> date (apart from those that occur during original install).
>
> Finding that mail forwarded to an internal M$Exchange server encountered
> user addressing problems, we thought we'd apply sendmail patch 102980-17.
> This patch has 103667-09 as a prerequisite.
>
> Our attempts to install 103667-09 fail with "None of the packages
> are installed on this system." Seems a bit odd, as the packages patched
> are SUNWcsr, SUNWcsu and SUNWhea. Tracing installpatch hasn't been too
> helpful : the failure occurs at the check_for_action function because
> $pkglist is null and this is a standalone system.
>
> Wandering further around Sun's public website turned up the
> 2.5.1_Recommended patches, and we contemplated installing this kit in the
> hope that it might fix our real problem ... but that seemed a bit too
> much like bungee-cord system admin, so we thought we'd pose the question
> to the list.
>
> Three questions:
>
> How do we correct the installpatch problem with getting 103667-09 installed?
>
> Should we consider it adviseable to install the 2.5.1_Recommended
> patches, with or without the 103667-09 patch?
>
> If we conclude that the recommended patches are worth trying, should we
> install the recommended patches before / after 103667?
>
> Thanks in advance. Will summarize to the list.
Comments
Got something to say?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
