In article <uafqwqGdYw9+IAE9@pillar.turnpike.com>,
Ian Bell <ianbell@turnpike.com> writes:
> In article <3ef6f3f1$0$49116$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, posted on Mon, 23
> Jun 2003 and read in comp.sys.sun.admin, Casper H. S. Dik
> <Casper.Dik@Sun.COM> wrote:
>>Ian Bell <ianbell@turnpike.com> writes:
>>
>>>In article <844b1161.0306201100.121ab69c@posting.google.com >, posted on
>>>Fri, 20 Jun 2003 and read in comp.sys.sun.admin, KP
>>><monster@thirstylizard.org> wrote:
>>>>Don't forget to put the full path to the name of the file you want to
>>>>rotate as the last parameter of the logadm command!
>>
>>>Thanks, but this has been confirmed as a known bug in Solaris 9 (and
>>>still in Solaris 10 Beta), but not one that has yet been addressed. I
>>>will try and make sure it is addressed soon :-)
>>
>>
>>It's bug "4763519 logadm fails to rotate > 2GB files" which is
>>fixed in the current internal incantation of S10.
>
> How can Solaris 9 users best get hold of a fixed logadm?

From what I've heard before, Sun typically fixes bugs first in the release
under development, _then_ in the current release, and perhaps after that
in the older still supported releases. I think which older release gets
fixed when may be affected somewhat by who/how influential (in terms of $$
of contracts involved)/how many is/are asking for which. (the $$ factor
could be said to be equivalent to larger numbers of folks asking for the
same thing, and the bottom line is the proper focus anyway, so don't take
it as a slam, it's not meant that way)

To get a patch before it's released, you probably need a support contract,
and to bug them to give you a temporary or "point" patch. And that will
probably have to be installed so that it does _not_ throw away the old
files, that is to say so that it _can_ be rolled back, 'cause you may have
to roll it back to properly install the real patch when it becomes
available.

Of course, I _could_ be all wet about any or all of the above, and no
doubt if that's true, someone who actually knows will correct the
misinformation.

--
mailto:rlhamil@mindwarp.smart.net http://www.smart.net/~rlhamil

In article <vfei9u23ib9ra8@corp.supernews.com>,
Richard.L.Hamilton@mindwarp.smart.net (Richard L. Hamilton) wrote:

> In article <uafqwqGdYw9+IAE9@pillar.turnpike.com>,
> Ian Bell <ianbell@turnpike.com> writes:
> > In article <3ef6f3f1$0$49116$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>, posted on Mon, 23
> > Jun 2003 and read in comp.sys.sun.admin, Casper H. S. Dik
> > <Casper.Dik@Sun.COM> wrote:
> >>Ian Bell <ianbell@turnpike.com> writes:
> >>
> >>>In article <844b1161.0306201100.121ab69c@posting.google.com >, posted on
> >>>Fri, 20 Jun 2003 and read in comp.sys.sun.admin, KP
> >>><monster@thirstylizard.org> wrote:
> >>>>Don't forget to put the full path to the name of the file you want to
> >>>>rotate as the last parameter of the logadm command!
> >>
> >>>Thanks, but this has been confirmed as a known bug in Solaris 9 (and
> >>>still in Solaris 10 Beta), but not one that has yet been addressed. I
> >>>will try and make sure it is addressed soon :-)
> >>
> >>
> >>It's bug "4763519 logadm fails to rotate > 2GB files" which is
> >>fixed in the current internal incantation of S10.
> >
> > How can Solaris 9 users best get hold of a fixed logadm?
>
> From what I've heard before, Sun typically fixes bugs first in the release
> under development, _then_ in the current release, and perhaps after that
> in the older still supported releases. I think which older release gets
> fixed when may be affected somewhat by who/how influential (in terms of $$
> of contracts involved)/how many is/are asking for which. (the $$ factor
> could be said to be equivalent to larger numbers of folks asking for the
> same thing, and the bottom line is the proper focus anyway, so don't take
> it as a slam, it's not meant that way)
>
> To get a patch before it's released, you probably need a support contract,
> and to bug them to give you a temporary or "point" patch. And that will
> probably have to be installed so that it does _not_ throw away the old
> files, that is to say so that it _can_ be rolled back, 'cause you may have
> to roll it back to properly install the real patch when it becomes
> available.
>
> Of course, I _could_ be all wet about any or all of the above, and no
> doubt if that's true, someone who actually knows will correct the
> misinformation.

What's the big problem here? Aren't there freeware applications that do
the job in place SUN's broken version? Perl had CPAN modules to do this
sort of thing a couple years ago.

If SUN's version is busted and you don't have a contract, why don't you
use one of those? Waiting 6 months for a contract t-patch seems like a
waste of time.

Just fix it and move on...

--
DeeDee, don't press that button! DeeDee! NO! Dee...