I think you can REJECT specific PTFs.
REJECT takes a PTF out of the GLOBAL zone. If it's already applied, you won't undo the PTF APPLY. RESTORE ing the PTF just so you can have another go at it is not a good idea. As people have said, RESTORE rolls back to the last ACCEPTed status but you have to RESTORE all PTFS in the chain. A fairly difficult and pointless exercise in this case. APPLY REDO is the easiiest route to take but what if the PTF was a ++VER REP? It's not going to work. Then you get into another mess. I remember when CA would issue PTFS that were all VER/ZAP fixes and then when they were bad, I wrote USERMODS to undo them because it was insanity to ACCEPT anything. One day when I was on leave a SYSPROG did an accept. Most of us have been burned and take the ADRDDSU dump everything SMPE and RESTORE if it goes pear shaped. MSHP on VSE has a much better approach to backing out PTFS. Wonder why SMPE couldn't have been the same. On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 4:56 PM Mike Schwab <[email protected]> wrote: > I think you can REJECT specific PTFs. > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 10:07 AM Bob Bridges <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > I'm the Top-Secret admin for a client whose system programmer retired a > couple years ago. The client tapped another employee to take his place, > and she's learning the job with frantic haste but insists with some > justification that she's not a system programmer yet. Me, I came into > security through the applications-development side so I'm not even close. > > > > Together she and I are trying to learn SMP/E. The immediate purpose is > so we can apply some TSS-related PTFs, but really, it's become clear to me > that we need no excuses to make it a priority; SMP/E is kind of important. > > > > I have embarked on a serious reading of the SMP/E User's Guide, but I > still need help. I'll limit myself to a handful of questions to start with: > > > > Question #1) We started by applying a PTF - call it A for simplicity - > and its prerequisite B. We did that last August and then the project > languished for the sake of other priorities. Now we're working on it again > and we want to restore those two PTFs and do the APPLY again. Why? Well, > partly because it was 'way back in August and we're uncertain about exactly > how we did it back then. We know more now. Partly because we know more > now and we want to practice it better. I dunno, partly because we just > want to. I think maybe we bypassed some HOLDs back then too. > > > > Anyway, we attempted the RESTORE, but we got lots and lots of error > messages saying we need to include other PTFs in the RESTORE. Some of > these have an indirect connection to A and B; B superceded at least three > of them, for example, which I can see were applied some years ago. Others > have no relation to our PTFs that I can discern. I haven't yet found the > place in the User's Guide that explains these relationship and their > relevance. Can someone give a helpful explanation? > > > > Question #2) So far as we can tell by issuing LIST XREF commands, > whoever ran this thing in the past never did any ACCEPT, ever, except for > the original function code. I see at least 11 PTFs that were applied > (including our two), but the distribution library shows no PTFs for any > module I've yet LISTed. If true, does that mean that to do a RESTORE of > our two PTFs we'll have to RESTORE everything back to the plain-vanilla > base? > > > > Question #3) My partner the not-sysprog has in mind that maybe we need > to set aside this CSI (which is dedicated to Top Secret) and create another > one starting with the base software and build up from there. I didn't > realize this could be done, but she thinks she can do it. If it'll work, I > like it; we'll know in that case what we have, which we do not at present. > Anyone have any thoughts on this plan? > > > > Question #4) This is a less-important add-on: In both the online > documentation and the User's Guide, I read if I'm doing a RESTORE and name > PTFs A and B, including the GROUP operand causes SMP/E to add whatever > other PTFs are required for various reasons. It doesn't seem to, though; > it names them and complains about them, but doesn't add them to the list. > Have I misunderstood something? I'm loathe to believe the documentation is > flat wrong. > > > > If you're getting ready to send rushed messages saying "DON'T DO > ANYTHING UNTIL YOU'VE CHECKED...", relax; we're planning to go slow. > > > > --- > > Bob Bridges, cell 336 382-7313 > > [email protected] > > [email protected] > > > > /* Anyone can do any amount of work, provided it isn't the work he is > supposed be doing at that moment. -Robert Benchley */ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > > -- > Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA > Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all? > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > -- Wayne V. Bickerdike ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
