On 04/25/2013 08:35 PM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:54:41 -0700, John Norgauer wrote:
Have any of you sysprogs ever had to look at a SUP'ed PTF?
Reason for the question is the following. Recently I put on a monstrous
PTF with almost 2.7 meg records. This huge PTF sup'ed
another PTF that was about the same size. We have had to added SMPPTS1 and
SMPPTS2 to accommodate the PTF's
Don't you think IBM should reject a PTF from the PTS that has been
SUP'ed?
Does IBM have reasons for keeping the SUP'ed PTF's
What say you folks about this?
I believe you can just delete it from the SMPPTS and SMP/E will
hardly know the difference. Sooner or later you can do an ACCEPT PURGE.
-- gil
The reason, of course, for preserving the SUP'd PTF is that the
follow-up PTF, while presumably fixing an error in the 1st PTF, might
itself be the subject of an ERROR HOLD before it can be applied. In
such a case it is not inconceivable that for some given site it might be
determined that putting on the first PTF might resolve some issue more
serious for that site than the problems caused by the first PTF, while
the problems with the 2nd PTF might be too serious to tolerate. Having
both PTFs leaves a site the option of overriding ERROR holds on the 1st
PTF and applying the 1st without the 2nd. On the other hand, IBM might
just cease to distribute the first PTF if they judge the errors too
dangerous for any sane SysProg to apply without the follow-up PTF(s).
--
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
