Re: VMS732_UPDATE-V0600,VMS732_MQ-V0400,VMS732_DDTM-V0100 and required features

Phillip Helbig---remove CLOTHES to reply wrote:
In article <TSmRf.4619$4S4.1618@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, hoff@xxxxxxxxx (Hoff
Hoffman) writes:


There is no right answer.

There is no general answer.

There is no best answer.


I agree.


3: we can do has we've largely been for the past five or ten
years now, and can generate small kits for specific fixes and can then periodically generate roll-up kits that can serve as the basis for future work.

I really liked 1 until I slammed into all of the permutations, and into factors such as the installation-ordering of the kits -- this
approach gets really hairy, and the permutations climb monstrously.

I don't like 2, as it slows down the release of fixes -- and thus it
causes fixes to be blocked by other and potentially unrelated fixes.

That leaves 3. New "point" ECO kits that involve some or all of the
images in VMS732_UPDATE V6.0 and in various of the earlier "point" ECO
kits will then tend to specify the VMS732_UPDATE V6.0 kit as the prerequisite, rather than the "point" kit. This approach allows the
new ECO to be tested in a more contained environment, obviously, and
it also simplifies the documentation and the prequisities-related
processing within various tools, and it allows us to speed out the
smaller kits and to then create, test and release the larger roll-up
kits.


I agree that 3. is the best bet. However, my concern is with something else:


:However, in the descriptions of these patches, there are certain :products which are mentioned as REQUIRED features, namely in the former :case IBM MQseries and in the latter case DECDTM,RDB,ACMS,XA.

Not true. The MQ patch is required for MQSeries. MQSeries is *NOT*
required for installing the MQ patch. Same for the other patches.

:
:Either these are not really features which are required for the patch to :be installed or these patches should not be part of an update kit, which :"should be installed by all customers".
:

They are not and never have been.



:I suspect the former is the case, i.e. these features are not "required" :in order to install the patches, but rather there is no point in :installing them if one does not have these features. Is that really the :case?


You are misreading the list under

INSTALL_2 : To be installed by all customers using the
following feature(s):

- IBM MQSeries


This does not say that "IBM MQSeries is to be installed by anyone
installing the patch". It is saying the "INSTALL 2" rating applies
to anyone using the listed features (the list consisting of one
element, IBM MQSeries.)

"INSTALL Rating 2" applies to patches that are only required if
certain optional features or layered products are being used.
If you are using the optional feature, then the patch is required.
If you are not, then the patch is optional.

(Rating 1 patches are required for all customers and rating 3
patches are optional.)




In other words, in the individual notes, it says (and English IS my
native language, so I don't think I'm misunderstanding it) in effect "in
order to install this patch, you must have installed the following
software". That's pretty much what "required" means. No problem with
an individual patch---don't install it if you don't have the product it
patches---but these patches are in the UPDATE and could/should be
installed by folks who DON'T have these "required" products.


The patch doesn't patch MQSeries. It fixes a system facility used
by MQSeries.

If the software products aren't really required to install the
individual patches, but rather it is just that installing them without
the product they are supposed to patch will do nothing but clutter the
system but not break anything, then, OK, there is no harm, but I think
the wording should be changed, e.g. "you only need to apply this patch
if you have <software> installed; you can, however, install it without
having <software> installed, for example as part of an UPDATE patch, and
cause no harm to your system". I suspect that most customers do not
have Rdb and do not have MQSERIES installed.


It shouldn't be changed to say that because it already says that.


Of course, a workaround would be for every VMS installation to include a full Rdb installation. :-)



--
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: MS03-026 - are you patched? Windows Update isnt sure!
    ... registry checks to determine if a patch is installed on a given machine. ... Many patches install a registry key to indicate that they have been ...
    (NT-Bugtraq)
  • Re: This is Why Consoles are More Popular than PCs for Gaming
    ... Just remembering you needed that faithful floppy disk to install SATA ... > patch downloaded, well the patch took *forever* to install. ... You download patches every time? ... still have patches for games I have uninstalled on CD. ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action)
  • Re: Patch cluster 10_x86_Recommended fails at 119255-77 (thir one on list)
    ... The patch set will complete installation in this session. ... Application of patches finished: 2010.11.28 17:54:45 ... Aborting due to failure while applying patch 119255-77. ... Install log files written: ...
    (comp.unix.solaris)
  • Re: Patching Solaris 9 systems to "current"
    ... Would it be best/safest to get a support case with Sun and ask for the last recommended patch cluster, and just install that? ... The main thing I'm looking for is "safety", by which I mean minimizing the possibility of trashing any of these systems, since all of the people who were involved with the original deployment are apparently long gone:(. ... I'd *strongly* suggest that you make a backup of the system disk on each machine before applying ANY patches! ...
    (comp.unix.solaris)
  • Re: Oh no, MicroSoft Blew It Again...
    ... I didn't install it, but I'm on Vista and I think I have Auto-updates turned ... after just recently seeing the "patch in question" ... and FORCE a reboot, then I've just lost thousands of dollars - and maybe ... ZERO patches, and ZERO problems! ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)