> Good point. I have no idea whether there is actually a frequent need to
> make a functional change in the IPLTEXT or if 99.9% of the changes are > just to match dates with Nucleus. If the later, then the Nucleus and > IPLTEXT should obviously contain something that indicates an IPLTEXT > version required by the Nucleus that could be verified instead of the > date, and a differently dated nucleus that still requires the same > IPLTEXT functional level could still indicate the old IPLTEXT version. > That way the IPL process could validate IPLNEXT/nucleus compatibility > without requiring a date match, and the need to update IPLTEXT would be > minimized. "The Nucleus" does not have a date. The comparison is between the assembly dates of IEAIPL00 and IEAIPL01. IEAIPL01 is just the list of IPL IRIMs, and it changes very rarely of its own accord. What actually happens is that whenever we need to change IEAIPL00, we also include a reassembled IEAIPL01 so that the checking will verify that the new IEAIPL00 has been written as the IPL text. Jim Mulder z/OS System Test IBM Corp. Poughkeepsie, NY ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
