Re: Concatenation order in LPALST

Your security product, whatever it is, may have a requirement for a library to be in the LPA concatenation, I believe. Bill J. On Tuesday, February 16, 2016 8:19 AM, John McKown wrote: On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:51 AM, Nathan Astle

Re: Concatenation order in LPALST

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 6:51 AM, Nathan Astle wrote: > Hi, > > Apology for asking dummy question. > > Is there a reason on why we need to place Security product LPALIB after the > System LPALIB in LPALST00 ? > ​Because the vendor said to? [grin]. I would guess that it

Re: Concatenation order in LPALST

Sys1.lpalib is alwaya first forced by mvs if u dont specify it. The only exception is if you use the syslib statement to override ir's name. ITschak בתאריך 16 בפבר 2016 15:13,‏ "Mark Jacobs - Listserv" < mark.jac...@custserv.com> כתב: > It's not required but a good practice to have SYS1.LPALIB

Re: Concatenation order in LPALST

It's not required but a good practice to have SYS1.LPALIB first in the LPALST unless you know what you're doing. Mark Jacobs Nathan Astle February 16, 2016 at 7:51 AM Hi, Apology for asking dummy question. Is there a reason on why we need to place Security

Concatenation order in LPALST

Hi, Apology for asking dummy question. Is there a reason on why we need to place Security product LPALIB after the System LPALIB in LPALST00 ? Nathan -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send