maoursler@miavx0.ham.muohio.edu (07/10/90)
Hi, Well, we the people at Miami are still having loads of fun with our new DECstation 3100. 8-) I have another problem that I very much hope has a SIMPLE solution. Somehow, I very much doubt it. The problem is that when I use the 'setld' command to install some libraries I get a rather unfriendly message telling me that package 'foo' requires package 'bar'. Upon checking, it seems we have the newer version of 'bar'. It asks for version 3 and we have 3.1. Example: requires UDTCOMM030 (we have UDTCOMM031) I am writing this from memory, so I may be somewhat mixed up in my names, but this is the general problem. We are unable to install several packages because of this. Is there anything we can do short of getting newer versions of the packages that are looking for older stuff or getting older versions of the newer stuff. ALL help greatly appreciated. I am ODing on Tylenol. - Miles - maoursler@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu maoursler@miavx2.bitnet
grr@cbmvax.commodore.com (George Robbins) (07/10/90)
In article <160.2698e133@miavx0.ham.muohio.edu> maoursler@miavx0.ham.muohio.edu writes: > > I have another problem that I very much hope has a SIMPLE solution. > Somehow, I very much doubt it. The problem is that when I use the > 'setld' command to install some libraries I get a rather unfriendly > message telling me that package 'foo' requires package 'bar'. Upon > checking, it seems we have the newer version of 'bar'. It asks for > version 3 and we have 3.1. That's a rtfprn - read the fine print in the release notes... There a step that you have to do to tell setld that you have the orginal base libraries installed, even though you actually loaded a newer base. You have to do this for the core stuff, which is described and you may also have to do it for layered products, which may require a little generalization... -- George Robbins - now working for, uucp: {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr but no way officially representing: domain: grr@cbmvax.commodore.com Commodore, Engineering Department phone: 215-431-9349 (only by moonlite)
acar@usenet.umr.edu (Levent Acar) (07/11/90)
In article <160.2698e133@miavx0.ham.muohio.edu> maoursler@miavx0.ham.muohio.edu writes: |>Hi, |> |> Well, we the people at Miami are still having loads of fun with |> our new DECstation 3100. 8-) |> |> I have another problem that I very much hope has a SIMPLE solution. |> Somehow, I very much doubt it. The problem is that when I use the |> 'setld' command to install some libraries I get a rather unfriendly |> message telling me that package 'foo' requires package 'bar'. Upon |> checking, it seems we have the newer version of 'bar'. It asks for |> version 3 and we have 3.1. |> |> Example: requires UDTCOMM030 (we have UDTCOMM031) |> |> I am writing this from memory, so I may be somewhat mixed up in my |> names, but this is the general problem. We are unable to install |> several packages because of this. Is there anything we can do |> short of getting newer versions of the packages that are looking |> for older stuff or getting older versions of the newer stuff. |> |> ALL help greatly appreciated. I am ODing on Tylenol. |> |> |> - Miles - |> maoursler@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu |> maoursler@miavx2.bitnet I believe you got the update tape. In order to install Ultrix-32 V3.1, you first have to install V3.0. This point is clearly stated in the update installation document. I had no trouble installing V3.1 on top of V3.0 using setld. There was only one subset UDTDL030 which was not included in the V3.0, so the update UDTDL031: Diskless support Env.V3.1 did not get installed. I have a suspicion that DEC was shipping that software separately when they first introduced V3.0. I think setld is one of the better enhancements in Ultrix. It saves a lot of headaches not only when you install it, but also when you want to remove it. -- ****************************************************************** L. Acar Univ. of Missouri-Rolla ******************************************************************
mellon@fenris.pa.dec.com (Ted Lemon) (07/11/90)
I have a script that I run on all my machines after I've installed
them which essentially checks to see if you're running UWS 2.2D
instead of UWS2.1 or UWS2.2, and if you are, then for every file that
matches UDT*031.lk in /usr/etc/subsets, a file UDT*030.lk is created,
and for every file UDW*022.lk, a file UDW*020.lk is created. This
fools other subsets into believing that the subsets that they're
looking for are actually installed. The code is shown below:
if [ -f /usr/etc/subsets/U?TBASE031.lk ] &&
[ ! -f /usr/etc/subsets/U?TBASE030.lk ]; then
foo=`ls /usr/etc/subsets/U?T*031.lk |sed -n -e 's/031/030/p'`
touch $foo
foo=`ls /usr/etc/subsets/U?W*022.lk |sed -n -e 's/022/020/p'`
touch $foo
fi
Have fun!
_MelloN_jeff@nsipo.arc.nasa.gov (Jeffrey Burgan) (07/11/90)
Basically, what you need to do is to create a file (usually via touch) that is the lock file (.lk) for the subset that it's looking for. This goes in the subsets directory in /usr/etc. So, if it says it needs subset UMAN030, just type "touch /usr/etc/subsets/UMAN030.lk" I ran into this problem trying to load DECnet 3.0 on a 3.1 system. Hope this helps, Jeff