In my previous reply, I was going to mention UCL but removed that reference. 
UCL is a great hammer that hits what you aim it at but cannot tell you what 
else you should be pounding as well. That's why I prefer to (re)traverse the 
SMPE path RECEIVE and APPLY to get all the related pieces in sync. 

My preference for the usermod would be 

-- Rework/rewrite the usermod for the new environment, including DISTLIB even 
though you don't plan to ACCEPT it. Give it a current rework date to make sure 
it gets RECEIVEd. Most important, PRE all the PTFs that have hit the COBOL 
options module during the life of the FMID. 

-- RECEIVE and APPLY the updated usermod. At this point all relevant entries 
should be correct without further tweaking. 

-- If you need to install a subsequent PTF that hits the options module, rework 
the usermod again with a new REWORK date and a PRE for the new PTF. This 
procedure can be used for any normal install.

.
.
J.O.Skip Robinson
Southern California Edison Company
Electric Dragon Team Paddler 
SHARE MVS Program Co-Manager
323-715-0595 Mobile
626-543-6132 Office ⇐=== NEW
[email protected]


-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf 
Of Jousma, David
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 9:04 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: (External):Re: BUILDMCS fallout

Yea, I think you are correct Rob.

_________________________________________________________________
Dave Jousma
Manager Mainframe Engineering, Assistant Vice President [email protected]
1830 East Paris, Grand Rapids, MI  49546 MD RSCB2H p 616.653.8429 f 616.653.2717

-----Original Message-----
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf 
Of Rob Schramm
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 11:54 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: BUILDMCS fallout

There is a warning that the target and dist should be at the same level.
Which makes me think that anyth Maybe just backing off the usermod, and then 
receive / apply after the buildmcs is complete.


Rob Schramm

On Tue, May 9, 2017, 10:49 AM Allan Staller <[email protected]> wrote:

> Different FMID's. IIRC, different DDDEFs. Should not be any conflict 
> with both compilers in the same zone.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] 
> On Behalf Of Jousma, David
> Sent: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 9:34 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: BUILDMCS fallout
>
> All,
>
> Maybe a SMPE guru can help me.  We are starting to work on conversion 
> project to move from Enterprise COBOL 4.2 to 6.1 and as part of the 
> installation, I did a BUILDMCS on the FMID's for V4.2 so that I could 
> move it into its own set of zones, so that I could install V6.1 into my z/OS
> zones.   The BUILDMCS, and follow-on's to receive and apply into the new
> zones went fine.  However, my usermod for setting default options(MCOB001)
> somehow got SUP'd by FMID for COBOL.   I've been able to overcome this by
> coming up with a new usermod name, and having it PRE(MCOB001), but if 
> at all possible, I'd like to get this fixed.  The usermod wasn't 
> ACCEPTED in its prior zones, so not exactly sure how this happened.
>
> From the target zone, and oddly, shows the same for the COBOL DLIB 
> zone as well.  Is there a way to remove this relationship?  MCOB001 is not 
> applied.
>
> Primary Command: FIND
>
> Entry Type:  SYSMOD                              Zone Name: MVSCBT
> Entry Name:  MCOB001                             Zone Type: TARGET
> Description:
>
>   Type:                          Status:
>   FMID:                          SUPBY   HADB420
>   Date/Time:
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Dave Jousma
> Manager Mainframe Engineering, Assistant Vice President 
> [email protected]
> 1830 East Paris, Grand Rapids, MI  49546 MD RSCB2H p 616.653.8429 f
> 616.653.2717
<snip>
Rob Schramm

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN

Reply via email to