sun_patchchk failed for solaris-sparc and solaris-i586 (see below) and pass for
solaris-sparcv9 and solaris-amd64

Patch 152076-05 contains f objects already delivered by 125137-34.
These objects are:
         /usr/jdk/instances/jdk1.6.0/demo/DEMOS_LICENSE

Please correct the patch, 152076-05, by either accumulating 125137-34 or by
making 152076-05 incompatible with 125137-34.


CONFLICT-ID=E80CB5

ERROR: 152076-05 fails F-Object audit
ERROR: This audit should not be overridden! Contact
ERROR:pst_tools_support_ww_grp@oracle.com if you have questions.
ERROR: [DetectFileObjectClash]


######################################################################
   # For more information on sun_patchchk audits, please visit:
#http://patchstatus.us.oracle.com/help/sun_patchchk_webhelp.php
   #
   # If you have additional questions, please contact:
   #pst_tools_support_ww_grp@oracle.com
######################################################################

sun_patchchk failed.

############ email exchange history ######################################
>
> On 7/20/2015 5:36 PM, Dave Hamaker wrote:
>> Hi Sergei,
>>
>> OK. I'm asking some questions internally.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Dave
>>
>>
>> On 07/20/15 16:19, sergei sapozhnikov wrote:
>>> Hi Dave,
>>>
>>> This is what we have now for "/jdk/instances/jdk1.6.0/demo/DEMOS_LICENSE"
>>> object (not */usr/*jdk/instances/jdk1.6.0/demo/DEMOS_LICENSE as it mentioned in
>>> sun_patchchk tool (if it is matter))
>>>
>>> (sparc) 152076-05 SUNWj6dmo/pkgmap
>>> <http://jre.us.oracle.com/java/re/jdk/6u105/promoted/fcs/b10/bundles/solaris-sparc/dist/152076-05/SUNWj6dmo/pkgmap>
>>>
>>> _have_ "/jdk/instances/jdk1.6.0/demo/DEMOS_LICENSE" object and _not_ mentioned
>>> in SUNWj6dmo/install/deletes
>>> <http://jre.us.oracle.com/java/re/jdk/6u105/patches/bin/deletes/solaris-sparc/SUNWj6dmo/install/deletes>
>>>
>>> (no SUNWj6dmx in 152076-05)
>>> (sparcv9) 152077-05 SUNWj6dmx/pkgmap
>>> <http://jre.us.oracle.com/java/re/jdk/6u105/promoted/fcs/b10/bundles/solaris-sparcv9/dist/152077-05/SUNWj6dmx/pkgmap>
>>>
>>> _do __not have_ "/jdk/instances/jdk1.6.0/demo/DEMOS_LICENSE" object and _it is_
>>> in SUNWj6dmx/install/deletes
>>> <http://jre.us.oracle.com/java/re/jdk/6u105/patches/bin/deletes/solaris-sparcv9/SUNWj6dmx/install/deletes>
>>>
>>>
>>> (i586) 152078-05 SUNWj6dmo/pkgmap
>>> <http://jre.us.oracle.com/java/re/jdk/6u105/promoted/fcs/b10/bundles/solaris-i586/dist/152078-05/SUNWj6dmo/pkgmap>
>>>
>>> _have_ "/jdk/instances/jdk1.6.0/demo/DEMOS_LICENSE" object and _not_ mentioned
>>> in SUNWj6dmo/install/deletes
>>> <http://jre.us.oracle.com/java/re/jdk/6u105/patches/bin/deletes/solaris-i586/SUNWj6dmo/install/deletes>
>>>
>>> (no SUNWj6dmx in 152078-05)
>>> (amd64) 152079-05 SUNWj6dmx/pkgmap
>>> <http://jre.us.oracle.com/java/re/jdk/6u105/promoted/fcs/b10/bundles/solaris-amd64/dist/152079-05/SUNWj6dmx/pkgmap>
>>>
>>> _do __not have_ "/jdk/instances/jdk1.6.0/demo/DEMOS_LICENSE" object and _it is_
>>> in SUNWj6dmx/install/deletes
>>> <http://jre.us.oracle.com/java/re/jdk/6u105/patches/bin/deletes/solaris-amd64/SUNWj6dmx/install/deletes>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Sergei
>>>
>>> On 7/20/2015 2:31 PM, Dave Hamaker wrote:
>>>> Hi Sergei,
>>>>
>>>> What I've found is that the file was added at 125137-34 and then moved to
>>>> SUNWj6dmx/install/deletes in all subsequent revisions. Please double-check
>>>> that is is not in the 152076-05 SUNWj6dmx/pkgmap files and IS in the
>>>> 152076-05/SUNWj6dmx/install/deletes file.
>>>>
>>>> This could be due to a problem in sun_patchchk, but I'd like to check the
>>>> above before drawing in those folks.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> -Dave
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 07/20/15 07:48, sergei sapozhnikov wrote:
>>>>> Hi Dave,
>>>>>
>>>>> just updating existing deletes are not helping, still complain about just one
>>>>> this object
>>>>>
>>>>> /usr/jdk/instances/jdk1.6.0/demo/DEMOS_LICENSE
>>>>>
>>>>> and only for solaris-sparc and solaris-i586
>>>>>
>>>>> -sergei
>>>>>
>>>>> On 7/16/2015 1:13 PM, Dave Hamaker wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Sergei,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, I have a decent guess. The <package>/install/deletes files in the
>>>>>> obsoleted patches must also need to be carried forward, which makes sense.
>>>>>> Try that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> -Dave