Here's more of the explanation: "Order B8456491 was Rejected at 06:50:56 04/23/2009</TEXT> <TEXT>UA46439 (CO-REQ) <--- Fix not found</TEXT> </COER_REJ>
. >From the above, the order failed as Co-Req UA46439 was not found. Looking at UA46439, it has been closed Cancel. This will need to be addressed by the ptf owners, DFSMSHSM. UA46439 should still not be being called out if it has been cancelled." -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2009 10:07 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: RECEIVE ORDER ERROR On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 21:09:48 -0500, Field, Alan C. wrote: > >I've asked our developers to investigate what we can do to clear up >this problem with the cancelled PTF that is co-req'd by the PTFs in >SDM and DSS. HSM PTF's UA46642 UA46641 UA46640 were created and now >closed COR, and these supercede the cancelled PTFs. So if you pull >these you should be able to get the maintenance on. It appears the >problem is that the SDM and DSS PTFs call for the cancelled HSM PTF >instead of its superceding PTF. > ??? It has long been my understanding that a SUPerseding sysmod unconditionally satisfies any requirement for the superseded sysmod. Is it a structural problem in that there's no HOLDDATA to cause GROUPEXTEND to work? -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
