On Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:37:42 -0600, Tom Marchant wrote:
>
>>Let me give an example. Suppose after I have APPLYed PTFs
>>A, B, and C in sequence I detect a bug. I'd like to isolate the
>>causing PTF. So I do what is necessary to RESTORE C and
>>test again. The bug is still there. So I'd like to RESTORE B
>>and test yet again. But I can't because in order to RESTORE C
>>I had to ACCEPT B, and now it can't be RESTOREd. This
>>is terrible; it's a deficiency in design.
>
>You didn't have to ACCEPT B or A. Indeed, in the example that
>you gave, it would be foolish to ACCEPT A or B. What you should
>have done in that instance, assuming that A, B and C all modified
>some of the same elements, is to RESTORE A, B and C, then apply
>A and B.
>
I would be ecstatic if I could tell SMP/E in a single brief command
to do whatever is necessary to eliminate C but leave A and B in
the status quo ante. And, by the way, optimize the aggregate
operation so load modules affected by A or B but not by C were
not relinked. If this were possible, I'd ACCEPT only the base
FUNCTION and roll back to any service level I desired.
And, by the way, it should be possible even if C has ++DELETE.
Why not? "Because the SMP/E Reference says you can't" is
not a satisfactory answer.
Look; I could create a new target zone, and from the existing
GLOBAL zone, assuming no required PTFs had been purged,
install into that new target zone all the PTFs through A and B,
omitting C:
SET BOUNDARY (NEWTZON) .
APPLY PTFS EXCLUDE( C ) .
SMP/E has all the required data and metadata; it just stubbornly
refuses to do it in the original zone.
-- gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
