casper@sun.com wrote:
I've tried to reproduce it. Unsucessfully. Everything updated normally. Maybe
because this time pa
ckage was taken from cache...
Can't happen when you install a SVr4 package; if exec_attr is empty, then
it is either:
a SVr4 package with a non-standard i.rb
>I've tried to reproduce it. Unsucessfully. Everything updated normally. Maybe
>because this time pa
ckage was taken from cache...
Can't happen when you install a SVr4 package; if exec_attr is empty, then
it is either:
a SVr4 package with a non-standard i.rbac install script
or
Hello.
> What did you upgrade from?
I upgraded from opensolaris b123 (x86-64).
> If you mount the old BE, did the file have any
> contents there?
Yes, they had about 300 lines in old BE.
> Is this reprodicible? (i.e. beadm activate the old BE
> and attempt a
> fresh upgrade to snv_125 again - d
What did you upgrade from?
If you mount the old BE, did the file have any contents there?
Is this reprodicible? (i.e. beadm activate the old BE and attempt a
fresh upgrade to snv_125 again - does the same happen?)
Regards,
Brian
Alexander wrote:
What a hell!!!
After updating to opensolaris
Alexander writes:
> What a hell!!!
> After updating to opensolaris build 125 I got an empty
> /etc/security/exec_attr, pkg fix SUNWcs (from old BE) didn't help
> from the first time, only after deleting empty file. Do these bugs
> bother only me?
I just updated yesterday from 124 to 125. /et
What a hell!!!
After updating to opensolaris build 125 I got an empty /etc/security/exec_attr,
pkg fix SUNWcs (from old BE) didn't help from the first time, only after
deleting empty file.
Do these bugs bother only me?
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
