FILES PATCHED OR REPLACED by patch VMS732_F11X-V0600

[Jan van den Boogaard_1]

Hello

the recent INSTALL_1 patch VMS732_F11X-V0600 has FILES PATCHED OR REPLACED with link date and times that are not recent at all.
Anyone knows why that is?

c below


7 FILES PATCHED OR REPLACED:


o [SYS$LDR]F11BXQP.EXE (new image)

Image Identification Information

image name: "F11BXQP"
image file identification: "XQP V73-2R BOX"
image file build identification: "XBOX-0060110048"

link date/time: 4-MAR-2008 09:41:10.96
linker identification: "A11-50"
Overall Image Checksum: 606190484

o [SYSEXE]FILESERV.EXE (new image)

Image Identification Information

image name: "FILESERV"
image file identification: "X-10"
image file build identification: "XBOX-0060110048"
link date/time: 4-MAR-2008 09:41:12.10
linker identification: "A11-50"
Overall Image Checksum: 3836430271

o [SYSLIB]INIT$SHR.EXE (new image)

Image Identification Information

image name: "INIT$SHR"
image file identification: "X-6"
image file build identification: "XBMU-0060111005"
link date/time: 17-JUL-2007 10:19:44.33
linker identification: "A11-50"
Overall Image Checksum: 1507117660

o [SYSLIB]MOUNTSHR.EXE (new image)

Image Identification Information

image name: "MOUNTSHR"
image file identification: "X-6"
image file build identification: "XBH4-0060111007"
link date/time: 8-JUN-2007 12:59:30.60
linker identification: "A11-50"
Overall Image Checksum: 886885207

[Jeff Chisholm]

Hi Jan,

Engineering will fix problems for customers as they are presented, and roll those fixes into the official remedial stream for that image for that VMS version. As a customer, when you experience a problem that we have documented, you're usually given a choice between installing the latest image from the remedial stream or waiting for the official kit.

When there's enough fixes, or enough interest in a kit, they'll go through the process of qualifying the complete kit with a bundle of such images, and writing release notes and so forth.

Looks like the volume of new F11B fixes for V7.3-2 is now quite low, and/or there wasn't a lot of interest. Putting together an official V7.3-2 kit #6 wasn't a priority. I think it's great, actually, that they're still issuing ECO kits for such an old version.

Regards, Jeff

[Hoff]

What seems weird here are not the intricacies of the remedial process and the source code control streams and related, though there are folks out here that reportedly have some vague understanding of all that.

What's weird (to me, if not also the OP) is an Install 1 kit that's been built of images that have been on the shelf for that long.

[George_145 · Accepted solution]

Not all rating 1 kits are created equal. In this case, the crashes fixed in this kit were found internally and, to my knowledge, have not been seen by customers. There was no urgent need to get this kit out. The only reason it was produced is that we needed to ship kits for later versions of VMS. In such a case we typically release kits for all supported versions. Officially, V7.3-2 is no longer supported, though we are still doing kits for it.

Geoerge Pagliarulo
ECO Release Process
OpenVMS Sustaining Engineering

[Jan van den Boogaard_1]

George, thanks for your reply. This clarifies it. INSTALL_1 meaning "to be installed by all customers" doesnt necessarily mean : to be installed a.s.a.p.

[George_145]

Correct. Install 1 kits fix system availability and other such issues, but not all customers may be seeing that problem. Install 1 means that HP recommends all customers install the kit but it is up to the customer to determine the best time to do that in their environment. If a kit needs to be installed ASAP, that will probably come out as a MUP.

George Pagliarulo