Can anyone tell how I can determine the build number of a version of 
Solaris 10? Is there a command that will tell you this? Is it contained 
in a file?

Thanks,
George Cebulka
System Engineer
U of Pittsburgh


"JAVA - Making your world slower, one application at a time...."

ghc4 wrote:
> Can anyone tell how I can determine the build number of a version of 
> Solaris 10? Is there a command that will tell you this? Is it contained 
> in a file?
> 
> Thanks,
> George Cebulka
> System Engineer
> U of Pittsburgh
> 
> 
> "JAVA - Making your world slower, one application at a time...."

The two most common ID commands:

      # uname -a

and

      # cat /etc/release

Wes Williams wrote:
> ghc4 wrote:
> 
>> Can anyone tell how I can determine the build number of a version of 
>> Solaris 10? Is there a command that will tell you this? Is it 
>> contained in a file?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> George Cebulka
>> System Engineer
>> U of Pittsburgh
>>
>>
>> "JAVA - Making your world slower, one application at a time...."
> 
> 
> The two most common ID commands:
> 
>      # uname -a
> 
> and
> 
>      # cat /etc/release

Ok, these two I know...:)
# uname -a
SunOS unixs2-old.cssd.pitt.edu 5.10 Generic_118822-25 sun4u sparc 
SUNW,Ultra-4

cat /etc/release
                      Solaris 10 1/06 s10s_u1wos_19a SPARC
            Copyright 2005 Sun Microsystems, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.
                         Use is subject to license terms.
                            Assembled 07 December 200S
So from the above output, what is the build number? Am I running build 
25 from the uname output or build 19a from the /etc/release? Or are 
neither of these correct?

On Tue, 9 May 2006, ghc4 wrote:

> # uname -a
> SunOS unixs2-old.cssd.pitt.edu 5.10 Generic_118822-25 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-4
> 
> cat /etc/release
>                      Solaris 10 1/06 s10s_u1wos_19a SPARC
>            Copyright 2005 Sun Microsystems, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.
>                         Use is subject to license terms.
>                            Assembled 07 December 200S
> So from the above output, what is the build number? Am I running build 25 from
> the uname output or build 19a from the /etc/release? Or are neither of these
> correct?

-25 is the rev of the kernel jumbo patch (KJP); 19a is the build number.

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

look at /etc/release file

"ghc4" <ghc4@pitt.edu> escribi� en el mensaje 
news:e3q9k8$fqg$1@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu...
> Can anyone tell how I can determine the build number of a version of 
> Solaris 10? Is there a command that will tell you this? Is it contained in 
> a file?
>
> Thanks,
> George Cebulka
> System Engineer
> U of Pittsburgh
>
>
> "JAVA - Making your world slower, one application at a time...." 

HSP <hsp@hotmail.kom> wrote:
> look at /etc/release file

This file won't be updated after patching.

The closest to get would be the kernel patch revision (uname -v)

-- 
Daniel

In article <Pine.SOL.4.64.0605090908440.26500@marrakesh>,
	Rich Teer <rich@rite-group.com> writes:
> On Tue, 9 May 2006, ghc4 wrote:
> 
>> # uname -a
>> SunOS unixs2-old.cssd.pitt.edu 5.10 Generic_118822-25 sun4u sparc SUNW,Ultra-4
>> 
>> cat /etc/release
>>                      Solaris 10 1/06 s10s_u1wos_19a SPARC
>>            Copyright 2005 Sun Microsystems, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.
>>                         Use is subject to license terms.
>>                            Assembled 07 December 200S
>> So from the above output, what is the build number? Am I running build 25 from
>> the uname output or build 19a from the /etc/release? Or are neither of these
>> correct?
> 
> -25 is the rev of the kernel jumbo patch (KJP);
> 19a is the build number.

.... of Solaris 10 update 1 (not Solaris 10).

-- 
Andrew Gabriel

Daniel Rock <v200619@deadcafe.de> wrote:
> HSP <hsp@hotmail.kom> wrote:
>> look at /etc/release file
> 
> This file won't be updated after patching.

Which is correct. The build version doesn't change through patches, only
through an upgrade. /etc/release is the true build number.

> The closest to get would be the kernel patch revision (uname -v)

That will show you how currenly patched you are, which doesn't necessarily
have any bearing on the build number.

Colin B. <cbigam@somewhereelse.nucleus.com> wrote:
> Daniel Rock <v200619@deadcafe.de> wrote:
>> This file won't be updated after patching.
> 
> Which is correct. The build version doesn't change through patches, only
> through an upgrade. /etc/release is the true build number.

A Solaris update release is in principle nothing else than a fully patched
system. Sometimes update releases bring you additional functionality which
you won't get (easily) just with patches, but basically a Solaris 8 02/04
is the same as a Solaris 8 02/02 patched to the same timeframe.


>> The closest to get would be the kernel patch revision (uname -v)
> 
> That will show you how currenly patched you are, which doesn't necessarily
> have any bearing on the build number.

And what information should the build number provide?

-- 
Daniel

Daniel Rock wrote:

> Colin B. <cbigam@somewhereelse.nucleus.com> wrote:
>> Daniel Rock <v200619@deadcafe.de> wrote:
>>> This file won't be updated after patching.
>> 
>> Which is correct. The build version doesn't change through patches, only
>> through an upgrade. /etc/release is the true build number.
> 
> A Solaris update release is in principle nothing else than a fully patched
> system. Sometimes update releases bring you additional functionality which
> you won't get (easily) just with patches, but basically a Solaris 8 02/04
> is the same as a Solaris 8 02/02 patched to the same timeframe.
> 

True .. true ...

Some time ago, when I first have to install Solaris9, I required a certain
feature ( something to do with SVM ) that was available only in a specific
build of Solaris 9 onwards according to the online docs.

I only had a very old build of Solaris9 on CD. So I was thinking of
obtaining the latest Solaris9 update CDs.

It turns out that the feature I needed was actually on a specific patch of
the kernel. So I just installed the latest cluster patch, and got done with
it.

/etc/release was not modified of course

On Thu, 11 May 2006, Daniel Rock wrote:

> A Solaris update release is in principle nothing else than a fully patched

Not really true.  Patches do not typically introduce new packages, they
patch existing ones.  Updtae releases, in addition to rolling loads of
patches, also deliver new packages.

In other words, Solaris 10 Update 2 will most likely contain more than
just Solaris 10 Update 1 plus recent patches.

-- 
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

Rich Teer <rich@rite-group.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 11 May 2006, Daniel Rock wrote:
> 
>> A Solaris update release is in principle nothing else than a fully patched
> 
> Not really true.  Patches do not typically introduce new packages, they
> patch existing ones.  Updtae releases, in addition to rolling loads of
> patches, also deliver new packages.

Please don't cite sentences out of context:

>> A Solaris update release is in principle nothing else than a fully patched
>> system. Sometimes update releases bring you additional functionality which
>> you won't get (easily) just with patches, but basically a Solaris 8 02/04
>> is the same as a Solaris 8 02/02 patched to the same timeframe.

Solaris 8 12/02, 05/03, 07/03, 02/04 all just contained support for new
hardware platforms and didn't add any new functionality. If you want to
install Solaris 8 on a platform supported already in 02/02 there is no
reason to use any of the later update releases.

Solaris 9 09/05 is the same as Solaris 9 09/04 with added support for the
US-IV+ CPUs.


> In other words, Solaris 10 Update 2 will most likely contain more than
> just Solaris 10 Update 1 plus recent patches.

Let's just wait. You can patch Solaris 10 03/05 up-to-date with no difference
to 01/06. New packages were introduced but they are all available as patches
also.


BTW: docs.sun.com is in a really bad shape (again). This service isn't the
best advertising for Sun...


-- 
Daniel

I understand what you're saying, that it may be possible to uplift a
system with patchadd to the same level as a Solaris maintenance
release, but this is extremely difficult and the chances are it won't
be the same.  A maintenance update may also remove functionality, which
would still be hanging around on a older build system.

The reason I say this is because I was tasked with uplifting a large
number of systems to a specific Solaris 9 release with patches and
after doing lots and lots of analysis with G (Sun UK CS people will
know what this is), I essentially gave up and did the maintenance
update which guaranteed the build level.

Which probably explains why when you do this, the /etc/release file
gets updated and why it doesn't when you just apply the kernel jumbo.

Stu

Daniel Rock <v200619@deadcafe.de> wrote:
> Solaris 8 12/02, 05/03, 07/03, 02/04 all just contained support for new
> hardware platforms and didn't add any new functionality. If you want to
> install Solaris 8 on a platform supported already in 02/02 there is no
> reason to use any of the later update releases.
> 
> Solaris 9 09/05 is the same as Solaris 9 09/04 with added support for the
> US-IV+ CPUs.

You're talking about special update releases (HW releases) here. You
can't say the same about Solaris 8 10/00, 1/01, 4/01, 7/01, 10/01, 2/02.
And neither for the 7 update releases of Solaris 9 before 9/05.

> Let's just wait. You can patch Solaris 10 03/05 up-to-date with no difference
> to 01/06. New packages were introduced but they are all available as patches
> also.

That's not true. I have e.g. SUNWipgea on my Solaris 10 1/06 system,
which is not contained in any patch. And it was even more wrong
right after 1/06 appeared, as most of the necessary patches had not
been available at that time.

Trying to update from one Solaris update release to another with patches
might be possible in some very limited cases, and will be impossible or
a complete waste of time in many others.

So generally, it is *not* possible.

mp.
-- 
Systems Administrator | Institute of Scientific Computing | Univ. of Vienna

Martin Paul <map@par.univie.ac.at> wrote:
> That's not true. I have e.g. SUNWipgea on my Solaris 10 1/06 system,

This is a new driver, somewhat comparable to a new hardware release. If you
buy such adapters later to install them in an existing system, usually a
disk with drivers is supplied.
So you will install the SUNWipgea, SUNWipged, SUNWipgedu packages from
the driver CD.

-- 
Daniel

Daniel Rock <v200619@deadcafe.de> wrote:
> Martin Paul <map@par.univie.ac.at> wrote:
>> That's not true. I have e.g. SUNWipgea on my Solaris 10 1/06 system,
> 
> This is a new driver, somewhat comparable to a new hardware release. If you
> buy such adapters later to install them in an existing system, usually a
> disk with drivers is supplied.
> So you will install the SUNWipgea, SUNWipged, SUNWipgedu packages from
> the driver CD.

I'll add SUNWfcprt (/usr/sbin/fcinfo). You'd have to deal with the
consolidation of the OpenGL packages, too.

Seriously - are you actually following your own advice and "upgrading"
systems like that, or are you just trying to prove that it theoretically
works ?

Not that I wouldn't like to have "update packs" consisting of patches
and new packages which could be used instead of (live) upgrade, for
those of us who want tight control.

mp.
-- 
Systems Administrator | Institute of Scientific Computing | Univ. of Vienna

In article <e41ge2$272i$1@server.rock.net>,
Daniel Rock <v200619@deadcafe.de> wrote:

>Solaris 9 09/05 is the same as Solaris 9 09/04 with added support for the
>US-IV+ CPUs.

I'm sorry, but no, this is not true. Solaris 9 9/05 contains 
many patches and newer java f.ex. 9/05 is not just for
newer servers. Also Solaris 8 > 2/02 contains better USB support etc
which can be benificial not just for newer machines.

One more reason for Solaris 9 9/05 is that it cuts almost one hour
of the recommended patch install duration. 

>> In other words, Solaris 10 Update 2 will most likely contain more than
>> just Solaris 10 Update 1 plus recent patches.
>
>Let's just wait. You can patch Solaris 10 03/05 up-to-date with no difference
>to 01/06. New packages were introduced but they are all available as patches
>also.

ZFS is not likely introduced as a patch? nor is realplayer? nor was
fcinfo for 1/06??

Regards
Fredrik
-- 
Fredrik Lundholm   
dol @ ce.chalmers.se
				 

Fredrik Lundholm <dol@ce.chalmers.se> wrote:
> In article <e41ge2$272i$1@server.rock.net>,
> Daniel Rock <v200619@deadcafe.de> wrote:
> 
>>Solaris 9 09/05 is the same as Solaris 9 09/04 with added support for the
>>US-IV+ CPUs.
> 
> I'm sorry, but no, this is not true. Solaris 9 9/05 contains 
> many patches and newer java f.ex. 9/05 is not just for
> newer servers. Also Solaris 8 > 2/02 contains better USB support etc
> which can be benificial not just for newer machines.

So you can with installing all the patches for Solaris 8 02/02.

No Solaris 8 release after 02/02 did add any new functionality not available
through patches, just support for Sun hardware released later.


> One more reason for Solaris 9 9/05 is that it cuts almost one hour
> of the recommended patch install duration. 

Unfortunately it is a "Sun Hardware" only release. You cannot install it on
any of the newer Fujitsu-Servers, unlike Solaris 9 09/04.


> ZFS is not likely introduced as a patch? nor is realplayer?

Let's wait.


> nor was fcinfo for 1/06??

I think a "pkgadd SUNWfcprt" is much easier than a reinstall/upgrade/lu.


Also read what I wrote earlier:
> A Solaris update release is in principle nothing else than a fully patched
> system. Sometimes update releases bring you additional functionality which
> you won't get (easily) just with patches, but basically a Solaris 8 02/04
> is the same as a Solaris 8 02/02 patched to the same timeframe.

If you don't need fcinfo you won't notice any difference in running a
Solaris 10 03/05 patched to KJP 118822-25 (and ~150 additional patches) and a
Solaris 10 01/06. Granted you won't get exactly the same versions (sometimes
update releases contain patches not (yet) released to the public, but with
the following patch revisions they will be again in sync)


-- 
Daniel

Daniel Rock <v200619@deadcafe.de> wrote:
> Solaris 8 12/02, 05/03, 07/03, 02/04 all just contained support for new
> hardware platforms and didn't add any new functionality. If you want to
> install Solaris 8 on a platform supported already in 02/02 there is no
> reason to use any of the later update releases.

Not true. In fact, if you must use Solaris 8, then the recommended version
to use is Solaris 8 2/04 (you can't still buy media kits for any of the
others, for example).  Even for those versions that just add hardware
support, they also bundle (basically) all patches that existed at the
time they were put together, which gives you a much better starting point
than the older releases.

> Solaris 9 09/05 is the same as Solaris 9 09/04 with added support for the
> US-IV+ CPUs.

And lots of patches added.

> > In other words, Solaris 10 Update 2 will most likely contain more than
> > just Solaris 10 Update 1 plus recent patches.
> 
> Let's just wait. You can patch Solaris 10 03/05 up-to-date with no difference
> to 01/06. New packages were introduced but they are all available as patches
> also.

No, you can't. There are things in U1 that are not available as patches.
Also, for the purposes of hardware support, a patched 3/05 is not the same
as running 1/06. eg, if you try and run US-IV+ boards on a patched 3/05
it may work, but it's not supported.

> BTW: docs.sun.com is in a really bad shape (again). This service isn't the
> best advertising for Sun...

What's the problem? Working fine for me at the moment.

  Scott

Scott Howard <scott@hunterlink.net.au> wrote:
> Daniel Rock <v200619@deadcafe.de> wrote:
> Not true. In fact, if you must use Solaris 8, then the recommended version
> to use is Solaris 8 2/04 (you can't still buy media kits for any of the
> others, for example).  Even for those versions that just add hardware
> support, they also bundle (basically) all patches that existed at the
> time they were put together, which gives you a much better starting point
> than the older releases.

Any later release of Solaris 8 after 02/02 doesn't contain any support for
newer Fujitsu servers (PrimePower 250, 450, 650, 1500, 2500). I also
don't know if anything newer than 02/02 was ever released for the x86
platform.


>> Solaris 9 09/05 is the same as Solaris 9 09/04 with added support for the
>> US-IV+ CPUs.
> 
> And lots of patches added.

So what? If I had installed Solaris 9 in December 2004 should I reinstall it
with 09/05 or simply patch it up? Granted, for new installations you will
win some time (30-90 minutes, depending how old the latest release and how
fast your machine is)


> Also, for the purposes of hardware support, a patched 3/05 is not the same
> as running 1/06. eg, if you try and run US-IV+ boards on a patched 3/05
> it may work, but it's not supported.

No surprise, since US-IV+ processors weren't available when 03/05 was
released. Therefor 03/05 HW1 was released, which is just a "patched up"
03/05.


For existing systems it is easier to patch it up regularly than to
upgrade/lu it.

For new systems it depends: If you want a homogenous environment use the
same Solaris release and update version you installed the original ones.
If you cannot - well, then you already have lost your homogeneity since
you now have different hardware.


>> BTW: docs.sun.com is in a really bad shape (again). This service isn't the
>> best advertising for Sun...
> 
> What's the problem? Working fine for me at the moment.

"Server error". Sometimes I have to press reload a few times until the page
finally shows up. It was worse in the morning (CET) than it is now, but still
far from perfect.


-- 
Daniel

"Daniel Rock" <v200619@deadcafe.de> writes in comp.unix.solaris:
|Let's just wait. You can patch Solaris 10 03/05 up-to-date with no difference
|to 01/06. New packages were introduced but they are all available as patches
|also.

Nope.   I haven't done a full comparison, but I know we didn't make the
new Mesa packages for Solaris x86 available as patches - they are only
available if you install S10 3/05 HW2 or S10 1/06 or later.

-- 
Alan Coopersmith * alanc@alum.calberkeley.org * Alan.Coopersmith@Sun.COM
  http://blogs.sun.com/alanc/ *  http://people.freedesktop.org/~alanc/
   http://del.icio.us/alanc/  *  http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~alanc/
  Working for, but definitely not speaking for, Sun Microsystems, Inc.

In <e443nh$j91$1@agate.berkeley.edu> Alan Coopersmith <alanc@alum.calberkeley.org> writes:

>"Daniel Rock" <v200619@deadcafe.de> writes in comp.unix.solaris:
>|Let's just wait. You can patch Solaris 10 03/05 up-to-date with no difference
>|to 01/06. New packages were introduced but they are all available as patches
>|also.

>Nope.   I haven't done a full comparison, but I know we didn't make the
>new Mesa packages for Solaris x86 available as patches - they are only
>available if you install S10 3/05 HW2 or S10 1/06 or later.

The GRUB boot system for x86 did go in as a patch.  It's so
complicated and error-prone, requiring multiple reboots, that I'm
recommending a reinstall of 1/06 rather than patching 3/05.


-- 
-Gary Mills-    -Unix Support-    -U of M Academic Computing and Networking-

Gary Mills <mills@cc.umanitoba.ca> wrote:
> The GRUB boot system for x86 did go in as a patch.  It's so
> complicated and error-prone, requiring multiple reboots, that I'm
> recommending a reinstall of 1/06 rather than patching 3/05.

An update with LiveUpgrade isn't much better. At some point you will get
problems to convince LiveUpgrade that GrUB really isn't located on c4d0,
but just on c2d0.

You have to hand-edit a few files, so you can finally ludelete your old
boot environment (why doesn't ludelete have a -f (force) flag?).

-- 
Daniel