Roger, My plans exactly.
Regards, Scott On Saturday, September 12, 2015, Roger Bolan <[email protected]> wrote: > My suggestion, as someone who has converted application programs to SMP/E > packaging in the past, is to be sure allocate your own CSI sandbox, with > your own zones, distribution libraries, and target libraries, where you can > play, experiment, and test without affecting anyone else on the system. > --Roger > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Ed Gould <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > Charles, > > about 15 years ago we had a european product foisted up on us from a > user. > > This was not SMP installable. > > The boss told me to try and install it. > > It was a so so installation some minor gotchas but it went reasonably > > smoothly.. > > I ran into a problem with it in execution (detail are blurred by now). I > > contacted the author and was told to hand link edit one of their modules > > outside of SMPE . I said that is iffy for this but what about the rest of > > the product if we run into any issues? The answer was yes we have had > > issues with that and that is the way the product works. > > I got off the phone and told my boss and he told me to drop it as the > > product must be completely SMPe maintainable. > > He told me to write him a memo and explain the issues and he forwarded it > > up to his boss and the answer came back to delete the product. > > > > Ed > > > > ps: I am replying to you directly as my reply to IBM-Main have been > > bouncing and since no one is owning IBM main anymore I don't know who to > > complain to. > > > > > > > > On Sep 11, 2015, at 10:26 AM, Charles Mills wrote: > > > > I assume one of the reasons you are venturing down this road is not so > >>> much because > >>> you (or your customers) think the initial install of your software in > >>> SMP/E format is > >>> very exciting, but rather because of the prospect of follow-on service > >>> in PTF format. > >>> > >> > >> I can't speak for the OP but I can speak to our own recent expedition > >> into the wonderful world of building for SMP/E. No, the motivation had > >> nothing to do with PTFs. We have a pretty simple product and for us, so > far > >> at least, for better or worse every fix consists of either (1) a change > to > >> configuration files in character form, so the change can be e-mailed as > a > >> simple text file or snippet with some edit instructions; or (2) an > entire > >> new build just like a new installation but with a JCL process that does > not > >> clobber existing customer parms. > >> > >> No, the motivation was customer requests. I said to a customer sysprog > "I > >> thought our IEBCOPY install was pretty good." He said "it's great, and > >> SMP/E is a pain in the [butt], but it's a consistent pain in the [butt]. > >> Every vendor's IEBCOPY install is unique." > >> > >> Customers -- especially the largest customers -- don't IMHO by-and-large > >> love SMP/E, but they know it and live and breathe it, and they want > vendor > >> products delivered that way. > >> > >> Charles > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected] > <javascript:;>] On > >> Behalf Of Kurt Quackenbush > >> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 8:09 AM > >> To: [email protected] <javascript:;> > >> Subject: Re: SMP/E Help > >> > >> I need some help with SMP/E. I need to convert our software to use > >>> SMP/E. I am not a SMP/E heavy. I have the following; > >>> > >>> 1. Linklib > >>> 2. Proclib > >>> 3. Parmlib > >>> 4. JCLLIB ( for install ) , this can be removed , because SMP/E will > >>> do it 5. Rexx Clistlib > >>> > >> > >> Further thoughts on the process of packaging your software in SYSMOD > >> format: I assume one of the reasons you are venturing down this road is > >> not so much because you (or your customers) think the initial install of > >> your software in SMP/E format is very exciting, but rather because of > the > >> prospect of follow-on service in PTF format. Therefore, you must > consider > >> how you intend to supply parts/files later in PTFs before you create > your > >> initial FUNCTION SYSMOD. > >> > >> In my opinion, most parts/files ("elements" in SMP/E terminology) are > >> very simple to package and install. Using your example, procs, parmlib > >> members, sample JCL, execs, are all very simple to manage, package, and > >> install, because they are just members of a partitioned data set that > are > >> copied and replaced by SMP/E. It is modules and load modules that cause > >> the most grief. > >> > >> Traditional z/OS software is SMP/E packaged using MOD elements to > >> describe modules that get link edited during the APPLY to create load > >> modules (load modules or program objects). It is link edit steps in > JCLIN > >> that tells SMP/E how to put the MODs together to create these load > >> modules. This is all a very well grooved path, but, JCLIN and MODs can > be > >> a great pain, and I'd say the cause of most grief for packagers and > >> installers. > >> > >> You can greatly simplify you and your customers' efforts if you can > avoid > >> MODs and JCLIN altogether. That is, it is far simpler to package > complete > >> load modules using PROGRAM elements rather than as individual MODs with > >> JCLIN. PROGRAM elements treat load modules as simple members of a > >> partitioned data set that can be copied and replaced. No JCLIN is > >> necessary and no link edit processing is performed by SMP/E. > >> > >> To determine if you can successfully use PROGRAM elements you have to > >> consider the contents of your load modules and how they are built. Do > your > >> load modules include any parts not supplied by you? For example, > callable > >> services from CSSLIB or SCEELKED? Modules from subsystems or other > >> products, like SDSNLOAD or ISPLLIB? Side decks (IMPORT > >> statements) to resolve DLL references? If so, then you may want to, or > >> need to, package individual modules as MODs and supply JCLIN to define > your > >> load modules. Shucks. However, if your load modules are rather simple > and > >> include only modules that you own, then you should consider using > PROGRAM > >> elements in your SYSMOD packaging for your initial FUNCTION and > subsequent > >> PTFs. > >> > >> Kurt Quackenbush -- IBM, SMP/E Development > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send > >> email to [email protected] <javascript:;> with the message: > INFO IBM-MAIN > >> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > >> send email to [email protected] <javascript:;> with the > message: INFO IBM-MAIN > >> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > > send email to [email protected] <javascript:;> with the message: > INFO IBM-MAIN > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] <javascript:;> with the message: > INFO IBM-MAIN > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
