On 09/27/2012 07:45 AM, R.S. wrote:
(Hard words, but IMHO justfied)
See APAR II13027. Submitted date: 2001-10-30
Product named CCCA contains an error. It not error in the code itself,
it's error in SMP/E description of one of its elements. ABJ058 has
wrong RMID. It blocks some PTFs to the product.
I met this problem for the first time approx. in 2005. 7 years ago.
Note that CCCA is part of Debug Tool. Debug Tool itself is being
developed, new versions do come, while CCCA.
I was really astonished and upset when I found 1 or 2 years later,
that nothing changed - there still error in ABJ058 description.
STILL NO CLUE IN PROGRAM DIRECTORY, STILL NO FIX!
This year I installed z/OS 1.13, DT 12.1 - the newest versions
available. Current for 2012. I used ServerPac, so everything was
nicely integrated, service (PTFs) is included.
NO IT'S NOT SO EASY. CCCA has still the error, so 8-years old PTFs to
the product are NOT included.
How many years will we fix this ridiculous mistake manually?
Why there is even no clue about the need to do it?
What would break if one of 100+ ServerPac jobs would fix the RMID for
ABJ058?
I consider SMP/E as unnecessarily and exceedigly complicated, but this
case is exceptionally tits up.
(time for my pills)
If the product is still being distributed that way, it should certainly
be corrected. If an informational APAR is the only place this is
documented, this would suggest that someone incorrectly treated this as
only warranting documentation, not repair. I would file another problem
report and insist they at least commit to fix it in the next version of
ServerPac.
This sounds like the kind of problem where the installation
circumvention would be trivial: a few lines of UCLIN to fix the RMID to
the correct value so the PTFs will apply; but one shouldn't have to do
this manually for each new ServerPac just because they haven't bothered
to fix it in the distribution. And, if IBM really expected the
installation to do this manually each time, at the very minimum that
manual action should long ago have been described as ACTION HOLD data on
the PTFs that require it. You shouldn't have to hunt down some ancient
Informational APAR. If there is some reason IBM "recommends" not
applying the affected PTFs, that should be handled by some means other
retaining the element RMID mismatch.
--
Joel C. Ewing, Bentonville, AR [email protected]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
