On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 20:47:47 -0400, Jeffery Swagger wrote: >Yes, but this strikes me as incomplete. > >I did try an APPLY CHECK of the proposed USERMOD (minus the JCLIN) and >it appeared to produce the desired result. >In that a ++EXEC element would be created (target library SISPEXEC) with >an ALIAS of ONLY copied from SISPSAMP. > >However, here's the problem. The shipped IBM element ++SAMP(ISRONLY) has >no updates associated with it. >This is telling me, and I could be wrong, that IBM could ship a PTF to >ISRONLY, and then my ++EXEC is >out-of-sync because IBM knows nothing of a ++EXEC(ISRONLY). Uh Oh > >It seems to me that a complete solution to this problem requires that >the ++SAMP(ISRONLY) must have the RMID updated. >That way, if there is an IBM PTF, then SMP/E will detect a MODID error. > >Mark Zelden said the following on 7/1/2009 12:58 PM: >> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:22:01 -0400, Kurt Quackenbush <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>>> Perhaps Kurt Quackenbush (or someone else) would have a better way >>>> or "more proper" way to do it, but I think this should work: >>>> >>>> ++USERMOD (UMISPMZ) . >>>> ++VER (Z038) FMID(HIF5H02) . >>>> ++EXEC(ISRONLY) DISTLIB(AISPEXEC) ALIAS(ONLY) >>>> SYSLIB(SISPEXEC) TXLIB(SISPSAMP). >>>> ++JCLIN. >> I believe (but I'm uncertain) the following:
o You should apply the USERMOD to SAMP(ISRONLY). This sets the RMID of ISRONLY to UMISPMZ so the MODID check will happen because the IBM PTF presumably does not acknowledge UMISPMZ. o On a subsequent PTF to ISRONLY, SMP/E will ask that the USERMOD be RESTORED, then re-APPLYed. o I don't know how effectively to change the SYSLIB. -- 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
