Professional Web Applications Themes

lspf patch - SCO

Has anybody tried installing this patch recently? I downloaded the files a little while ago and attempted to install using scoadmin software. Partway through the install, an error message came up reporting one of the modules was corrupt, checksum error. I think the module was mkdef/fd. I have tried downloading the lspf files again, but no change. Any suggestions?...

  1. #1

    Default lspf patch

    Has anybody tried installing this patch recently?

    I downloaded the files a little while ago and attempted to install using
    scoadmin software. Partway through the install, an error message came
    up reporting one of the modules was corrupt, checksum error. I think
    the module was mkdef/fd. I have tried downloading the lspf files again,
    but no change.

    Any suggestions?


    Steve Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: lspf patch

    Steve wrote:
     

    If you mean LFPS, yes, people have installed it. When posting about an
    error condition, post the _exact_ words (including case and spacing, if
    at all possible), not a summary like you've given us here. Error
    messages have lots of specific details that are there to allow a
    technician to figure out what's wrong. When you leave them out, we're
    left with little better than to say "yeah, that sounds like a
    problem..."

    How are you downloading the files? It's easy to get corruption if your
    downloader thinks they're text files or does some other sort of
    conversion. Use a classic FTP tool (e.g. from Windows, the "ftp.exe"
    program). Tell it to use binary mode. Web browsers are notorious for
    garbling binary patch data.
     
    Bela Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: lfps patch

    Bela Lubkin wrote:
     
    >
    > If you mean LFPS, yes, people have installed it. When posting about an
    > error condition, post the _exact_ words (including case and spacing, if
    > at all possible), not a summary like you've given us here. Error
    > messages have lots of specific details that are there to allow a
    > technician to figure out what's wrong. When you leave them out, we're
    > left with little better than to say "yeah, that sounds like a
    > problem..."
    >
    > How are you downloading the files? It's easy to get corruption if your
    > downloader thinks they're text files or does some other sort of
    > conversion. Use a classic FTP tool (e.g. from Windows, the "ftp.exe"
    > program). Tell it to use binary mode. Web browsers are notorious for
    > garbling binary patch data.
    > [/ref]

    Bela,

    Thank you for the reply and sorry for the lack of detail. My posting was an
    afterthought and I did not have the details at hand.

    I downloaded using the SCO Openserver 5.0.7 ftp with prompt set to off and
    type set to I (bin). The error message is as follows:

    These verification errors have occurred.
    The file "./opt/L/SCO/Unix//5.0.7Hw/usr/lib/mkdev/fd" has checksum
    1852926661, expected 1852026533

    And yes, I did mean LFPS.


    Steve P.


    Steve Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: lfps patch

    Steve wrote:
     [/ref]
    >
    > I downloaded using the SCO Openserver 5.0.7 ftp with prompt set to off and
    > type set to I (bin). The error message is as follows:
    >
    > These verification errors have occurred.
    > The file "./opt/L/SCO/Unix//5.0.7Hw/usr/lib/mkdev/fd" has checksum
    > 1852926661, expected 1852026533[/ref]

    That's not one of the files that LFPS modifies; but during a patch
    installation, custom+ runs a quick verify on the components being
    patched. /usr/lib/mkdev/fd is part of the Unix component, which is
    patched by LFPS.

    You must have modified /usr/lib/mkdev/fd. That's not surprising, many
    people modify it e.g. to add to the list of files that are copied onto
    the root floppy of a boot/root crash recovery set. The underlying fault
    here is really a packaging error in OSR507: /usr/lib/mkdev/fd should be
    known to the system as a modifiable file (a file which the system
    expects to change, so it does not comment on it).

    You can ignore that warning, unless you _didn't_ modify the file and are
    mystified...
     
    Bela Guest

Similar Threads

  1. Patch?
    By princessjuice in forum Windows Setup, Administration & Security
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 16th, 04:24 AM
  2. The Patch
    By G.E. in forum Windows Setup, Administration & Security
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 15th, 11:58 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139