T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
487.1 | my guess is this | SMURF::BAT | Segui la tua beatitudine | Thu Apr 24 1997 14:27 | 29 |
| From: SMURF::BAT "Barbara A. Thomson ZKO3-2/X46 1-2955" 23-APR-1997 12:13:15.90
To: US2RMC::"[email protected]"
CC: BAT
Subj: RE: cobol installation
You do have V4.0A -- but some subsets check for dependencies
and the way they do is look for a specific file usually
named somethingBASEsomething for an operating system.
cd /usr/.smdb.
grep DEPS *.ctrl
You will see which subsets require which other subsets,
and what they expect the subset's name to be.
The best way to get around this is to create symlinks
using the name the subset expects to the name it actually
is., e.g.,
ln -s MLSBASE410.inv OSFBASE410.inv
ln -s MLSBASE410.scp OSFBASE410.scp
ln -s MLSBASE410.ctrl OSFBASE410.ctrl
ln -s MLSBASE410.lk OSFBASE410.lk
I think you really only need to link the lock (.lk) file,
but if you link all them you'll be safe.
|
487.2 | from alex | SMURF::BAT | Segui la tua beatitudine | Thu Apr 24 1997 14:29 | 45 |
| From: US2RMC::"[email protected]" "ASCHEN.US.ORACLE.COM " 23-APR-1997 22:27:26.94
To: smurf::bat
CC:
Subj: Re: RE: cobol installation
--=_ORCL_37997132_0_11919704231952160
Content-Transfer-Encoding:7bit
Content-Type:text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Barbara,
This does not work for me.
Here is what I did:
> cd /usr/.smdb.; grep DEPS *.ctrl
> Then, I figured I can just type "grep DEPS *.ctrl | grep MFCBASE" and the
result is:
MFCBASE400.ctrl:DEPS="."
>> I donot know what '.' means in this case.
> So I tried the symlink method and reinstall COBOL; But, the installation
fails with same error.
> I also notice your example is "OSFBASE410" and hope you just gave an
example. What I have on my system is "OSFBASE405".
> I attach the output from "grep DEPS *.ctrl" command to this email for your
reference.
> Could this be a license issue? (Because I have difficulty (not the same
error) when installing FORTRAN too)
# setld -v DFABASE410
...
IVP, information: Emptied scratch directory.
IVP, information: Compiling and linking.
License is invalid for this version of the product
DFABASE410, error: INSTALLATION VERIFICATION PROCEDURE FAILED.
setld: ivp failed.
Thanks.
=====================================
Alex Chen
Oracle Corporation Phone: 415-506-2316
500 Oracle Parkway Fax: 415-506-7408
M/S 3op7
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
|
487.3 | for me | SMURF::BAT | Segui la tua beatitudine | Thu Apr 24 1997 15:33 | 4 |
| Digital UNIX V4.0A Associated Products Volume 1
AG-QTMAB-BE
Volume 2
AG-QX6FB-BE
|
487.4 | to alex | SMURF::BAT | Segui la tua beatitudine | Thu Apr 24 1997 15:58 | 89 |
| > cd /usr/.smdb.; grep DEPS *.ctrl
> > Then, I figured I can just type "grep DEPS *.ctrl | grep MFCBASE" and the
> result is:
> MFCBASE400.ctrl:DEPS="."
> >> I donot know what '.' means in this case.
DEPS="." means that the MFCBASE400 subset isn't looking for any subsets
as prerequisites from the standpoint of the setld .ctrl procedure.
> > So I tried the symlink method and reinstall COBOL; But, the installation
> fails with same error.
The method suggested does not apply, because it turns out in MLS+ V4,
the subset names OSFBASE* already exist and are real so those layered
products should still be successful in finding the .lk files.
> > I also notice your example is "OSFBASE410" and hope you just gave an
> example. What I have on my system is "OSFBASE405".
Yes, it was just an example, I happened to look at a V4.0B system.
I should have looked at a V4.0A MLS+ system, sorry.
In any case, you should back out the change and reinstate OSFBASE
files as they were. This is what the V4.0A MLS+ box I'm looking at
has:
ls -lg OSFBASE*
-r--r--r-- 1 bin bin 200 Feb 24 17:18 OSFBASE405.ctrl
-r--r--r-- 1 bin bin 151448 Feb 25 08:53 OSFBASE405.inv
-r--r--r-- 1 bin bin 347 Feb 24 17:50 OSFBASE405.lk
---x--x--x 1 bin bin 4407 Feb 24 17:18 OSFBASE405.scp
> > I attach the output from "grep DEPS *.ctrl" command to this email for your
> reference.
Thanks. Because the error appears to be reported during the setld
command execution, and because the .ctrl file DEPS field does not
specify a dependency, then I would hazard a guess that there is
something specific to the MFC product in the .scp file. The .scp
file is a shell script that setld runs, and they could do anything
there (it's non-standard but then hey.) If you don't want to read
it, send it to me and I'll try and verify my guess.
> > Could this be a license issue? (Because I have difficulty (not the same
> error) when installing FORTRAN too)
> # setld -v DFABASE410
> ...
> IVP, information: Emptied scratch directory.
> IVP, information: Compiling and linking.
> License is invalid for this version of the product
>
> DFABASE410, error: INSTALLATION VERIFICATION PROCEDURE FAILED.
> setld: ivp failed.
Unless you are getting the MFC error message during the IVP execution,
then I'd say it is not the same. BTW, the IVP itself is a shell
script, and you should be able to examine it and see what it is
expecting.
Depending on whether it is really reading the license (lmf) database
or whether it is relying on the /usr/.smdb. files, I would make the
appropriate adjustments.
I see that you are installing DFABASE410, meaning it is probably
looking for OSFBASE410. In that case, I'd create symlinks OSFBASE410*
and link them to OSFBASE405* just to see if it works.
In general, when a new layered product comes out, the layered product
people automatically change the DEPS to the then current version of
the base operating system (if they are using the DEPS method). That
may or may not be a strict requirement. In other words, that version
of FORTRAN may run just fine on earlier versions of the operating
system. There may be no special changes to the current version of
the operating system to which that version of the layered product is
linked. On the other hand, there really may be some underlying
feature or fix on which they are dependent.
We always have to look at the product plan to find out if there
really is a dependency.
(The reason for this is that in general, DEC does not support older
versions when new ones come out; but there are exceptions to those
rules, and this is one.)
For your purposes, at the moment just to see if it works, just fudge
the links or modify the IVP or .scp scripts (save the originals of
course).
|
487.5 | well I'm still confused but Alex is happy | SMURF::BAT | Segui la tua beatitudine | Fri Apr 25 1997 20:59 | 27 |
| From: US2RMC::"[email protected]" "ASCHEN.US.ORACLE.COM " 25-APR-1997 18:15:17.18
To: smurf::bat
CC:
Subj: Re: re: Installing Micro Focus Cobol
Barbara,
Somehow, I successfully install Cobol and Fortran on MLS+ 4.0a, but I still
need to get a license to use Micro Focus Cobol. I am asking Jay Botelho to
get one for me, but If you can get one for me, then it is great.
The story is that I installed 2 MLS+ 4.0a on two separate disks when I had
OSF-BASE license problem on SMP machine and I was experimenting the lmf. I
can install compilers on one of the system which I did not experiment with
those lmf PAK. Since the compilers installation is working, I guess the
reason I have installation problem must be the license manager was not happy.
Anyway, sorry to confuse you. Everything works fine now except I need a Micor
Focus Cobol license.
Thanks for your help and best regards.
=====================================
Alex Chen
Oracle Corporation Phone: 415-506-2316
500 Oracle Parkway Fax: 415-506-7408
M/S 3op7
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
|
487.6 | closed | SMURF::BAT | Segui la tua beatitudine | Fri Apr 25 1997 21:00 | 8 |
| Alex, I don't "do" licenses -- Jay should be able to get all the
licenses you want through the relationship manager -- you should
actually get a "whole set" in one glob.
I still haven't a clue what went wrong, but hey.
Have a good weekend,
BAT
|
487.7 | Here's the MFC checks for OSFBASE in installation | TLE::KIDS::NESCHKE | | Fri May 30 1997 12:37 | 35 |
| Looks like I'm the one to blame on the checks with OSF versions on the
Micro Focus installation. This may also apply to other compiler products
since I usually take the examples from their setld scripting.
Here's what's there now.
========
# Is OSFBASE installed? If not, issue a dependency warning.
#
if STL_DepEval "OSFBASE*" not
then
echo "
${subset_name}: error: Be *sure* to install OSFBASE before running
the IVP (setld -v) and trying to use Micro Focus COBOL."
exit 1
fi
if STL_DepEval "OSFBASE1??" "OSFBASE2??" "OSFBASE30?" "OSFBASE31?" or or or
then
echo "
${subset_name}: error: Micro Focus COBOL for Digital UNIX
(MFCBASE) is not supported by versions of Digital UNIX
earlier than Version 3.2. MFCBASE cannot be installed on your system
until the required version of Digital UNIX is installed.
"
exit 1
fi
===========
Are we running into a problem because the old subsets are seen in this
check? Or is it only due to the MLSBASE naming? Any suggestions as to
what the script should look like?
-Joanne (tle::neschke)
|
487.8 | It think that part of the installation script is ok | SMURF::BAT | Segui la tua beatitudine | Fri May 30 1997 18:01 | 8 |
| Joanne, the script looks fine to me -- on an MLS+ box, an
ls of OSFBASE* returns only:
OSFBASE405.ctrl OSFBASE405.inv OSFBASE405.lk OSFBASE405.scp
So, your if test should fail. I think I was confused about what Alex
was asking about -- it turned out he needed the license (lmf PAK), not
that he needed to remap the subset names.
|
487.9 | still in progress | SMURF::BAT | Segui la tua beatitudine | Mon Jun 02 1997 17:37 | 8 |
| Joanne and I found out today that:
1. If you give the user limit and ilnofloat privs, it works.
2. But you cannot give the cob or the rts32 the privs in their
granted sets -- it doesn't work.
Don't know why yet.
|