Re: PTF error clarification

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 10:02:35 -0500, Richards, Robert B. wrote: >You have an *IBM rep*? > >I also wish that the HOLDs file was in a format that could easily be imported >into EXCEL so that I could use filtering criteria. > Heres a hack at converting HOLDDATA to CSV. (I left out the hard part:

Re: PTF error clarification

On 23 Dec 2015 15:52:13 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >In >, >on 12/23/2015 > at 04:52 PM, Mike Schwab said: > >>On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)

Re: PTF error clarification

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 10:02:35 -0500, Richards, Robert B. wrote: >You have an *IBM rep*? > >I also wish that the HOLDs file was in a format that could easily be imported >into EXCEL so that I could use filtering criteria. > (Or LibreOffice for those not Excel-afflicted.) Is it regular enough

Re: PTF error clarification

Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Robert A. Rosenberg Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 09:36 PM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: [Bulk] Re: PTF error clarification At 08:50 -0500 on 12/23/2015, Kurt Quackenbush wrote about Re: PTF error clarification: Is a return code

Re: PTF error clarification

, December 24, 2015 9:18 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: PTF error clarification Thank you all for your ideas and opinions. Just so we're all clear, I currently have no plans to make this kind of change to SMP/E, but its an idea I've had for a while and I thought it was worth discussing

Re: PTF error clarification

] On Behalf Of Richards, Robert B. Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2015 9:33 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: PTF error clarification Kurt, My Christmas wish: An enhancement to easily identify SECINT PTFs through reports Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year to All! Bob

Re: PTF error clarification

, December 24, 2015 9:40 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: PTF error clarification Yea, today you have to subscribe and be approved to access the SECINT data, and then you have to manually download the SMPE assigns, and receive that. Once that is done, you can then easily do apply's

Re: PTF error clarification

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 9:41 AM, Clark Morris wrote: > On 23 Dec 2015 05:50:44 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: > >>This is an interesting idea, which I'm curious to hear opinions on. If >>doing a mass APPLY (not using the SELECT operand), and PTFs are

Re: PTF error clarification

Is a return code of 4 more appropriate for PTFs not applied because of error hold? This is an interesting idea, which I'm curious to hear opinions on. If doing a mass APPLY (not using the SELECT operand), and PTFs are stopped because of a PE (ERROR HOLD), either directly or in a requisite

Re: PTF error clarification

to fall in that category. Lizette > -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Kurt Quackenbush > Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 6:51 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: PTF e

Re: PTF error clarification

- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Kurt Quackenbush Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 8:51 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: PTF error clarification > Is a return code of 4 more appropriate for PTFs not applied because of >

Re: PTF error clarification

To make everybody happy, make this a user controlled option, you decide what causes RC=xx. --- robert.richa...@opm.gov wrote: From: "Richards, Robert B." <robert.richa...@opm.gov> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: PTF error clarification Date:

Re: PTF error clarification

... Hasn't there been a recent enhancement so BYPASS can get RC=0? "Recent" is relative, but yes there was a change, in SMP/E V3.5, way back in z/OS V1.10, 2008. Doesn't really affect the current subject, but BYPASSed HOLDs will get RC=0 instead of RC=4.

Re: PTF error clarification

In , on 12/22/2015 at 10:55 PM, Clark Morris said: >Are there holds that should be bypassed Yes. >such as Action after noting the action And doc hold after reading the documentation There are some that I automatically

Re: PTF error clarification

PE Error RC8 From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List <IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU> on behalf of Kurt Quackenbush <ku...@us.ibm.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 7:50 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: PTF error clarification &

Re: PTF error clarification

On 23 Dec 2015 05:50:44 -0800, in bit.listserv.ibm-main you wrote: >> Is a return code of 4 more appropriate for PTFs not applied because of >> error hold? > >This is an interesting idea, which I'm curious to hear opinions on. If >doing a mass APPLY (not using the SELECT operand), and PTFs are

Re: PTF error clarification

<<< > Is a return code of 4 more appropriate for PTFs not applied because of > error hold? This is an interesting idea, which I'm curious to hear opinions on. If doing a mass APPLY (not using the SELECT operand), and PTFs are stopped because of a PE (ERROR HOLD),

Re: PTF error clarification

In <567aa6b1.8050...@us.ibm.com>, on 12/23/2015 at 08:50 AM, Kurt Quackenbush said: >This is an interesting idea, which I'm curious to hear opinions >on. If doing a mass APPLY (not using the SELECT operand), and >PTFs are stopped because of a PE (ERROR HOLD), either

Re: PTF error clarification

-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Chris Hoelscher Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 10:12 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: PTF error clarification I guess I have a basic question - is a return code intended

Re: PTF error clarification

On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:54:52 +, Jakubek, Jan > Is a return code of 4 more appropriate for PTFs not applied because of >> error hold? > >This is an interesting idea, which I'm curious to hear opinions on. If doing >a mass APPLY (not using the SELECT operand), and PTFs are stopped because of

Re: PTF error clarification

, 2015 09:27 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: [Bulk] Re: PTF error clarification > > Chris, > > I was having similar thoughts as you, although not to the extent of yours. I tend > to think along the first of your ideas about the purpose of the RC, tha

Re: PTF error clarification

In , on 12/23/2015 at 04:52 PM, Mike Schwab said: >On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) > wrote: >> In >>

Re: PTF error clarification

> Is a return code of 4 more appropriate for PTFs not applied because of > error hold? This is an interesting idea, which I'm curious to hear opinions on. If doing a mass APPLY (not using the SELECT operand), and PTFs are stopped because of a PE (ERROR HOLD), either directly or in a requisite

Re: PTF error clarification

In <29b16432403d6c45a9bee5f0302d191779b9f...@vss-exchmb1.sfg.corp.LOCAL>, on 12/23/2015 at 05:27 PM, "Pommier, Rex" said: >Maybe in way of compromise, SMP/E should set a RC=6 instead of 8 >where maintenance is stopped due to an error hold. :-) How does an error hold

Re: PTF error clarification

On Wed, Dec 23, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) wrote: > In > <29b16432403d6c45a9bee5f0302d191779b9f...@vss-exchmb1.sfg.corp.LOCAL>, > on 12/23/2015 >at 05:27 PM, "Pommier, Rex" said: > >>Maybe in way of compromise, SMP/E should

Re: PTF error clarification

t: Wednesday, December 23, 2015 09:36 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: [Bulk] Re: PTF error clarification > > At 08:50 -0500 on 12/23/2015, Kurt Quackenbush wrote about Re: PTF error > clarification: > > >>Is a return code of 4 more appropriate for PTF

Re: PTF error clarification

At 08:50 -0500 on 12/23/2015, Kurt Quackenbush wrote about Re: PTF error clarification: Is a return code of 4 more appropriate for PTFs not applied because of error hold? This is an interesting idea, which I'm curious to hear opinions on. If doing a mass APPLY (not using the SELECT operand

Re: PTF error clarification

Research this apar: ERROR HOLD AA49159 WAS NOT RESOLVED Either order/install the additional maintenance required *OR* *WITH GREAT CARE AND EXTREME DILIGENCE*, determine if the exposure in this AA49159 will affect you installation. If *YES* DO NOT bypass the error hold. If *NO*, the

Re: PTF error clarification

age- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] > On Behalf Of Staller, Allan > Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 07:00 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: [Bulk] Re: PTF error clarification > > Research this apar: > > ERROR

Re: PTF error clarification

> -Original Message- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Skip Robinson > Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 3:00 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: Re: PTF error clarification > > This is a h

Re: PTF error clarification

in > Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 04:39 PM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: [Bulk] Re: PTF error clarification > > On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 14:59:52 -0800, Skip Robinson wrote: > > > >This is a hot button of mine: going to extraordinary lengths to second > >gues

Re: PTF error clarification

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 14:59:52 -0800, Skip Robinson wrote: > >This is a hot button of mine: going to extraordinary lengths to second guess >SMPE. Like Santa Claus, SMPE knows who's been naughty and who's been nice. >Goodies and lumps of coal will be distributed accordingly. GROUPEXTEND is >*always*

Re: PTF error clarification

IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] >> On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin >> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 04:39 PM >> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU >> Subject: [Bulk] Re: PTF error clarification >> >> On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 14:59:52 -0800, Skip Robins

Re: PTF error clarification

t; To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: [Bulk] Re: PTF error clarification > > Receive the HOLDDATA. Then SMP/E checks for PE. Do specify GROUPEXTEND > (or GEXT). > > Bob Longabaugh > CA Technologies > Storage Management QA > > -Original Message- >

PTF error clarification

Hi, I am applying few toleration fixes for a hardware but I a receiving the below error message. CAUSER SYSMOD SUMMARY REPORT FOR APPLY CHECK PROCESSING CAUSER FMID MESSAGE ID PAGE ERROR DESCRIPTION AND POSSIBLE CAUSES UA90976 HBB7790 GIM35901I 2 ERROR HOLD AA49159 WAS

Re: PTF error clarification

M-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On > Behalf Of Jake Anderson > Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 5:02 AM > To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU > Subject: PTF error clarification > > Hi, > > I am applying few toleration fixes for a hardware but I a receiving the below > error message. > >

Re: PTF error clarification

: PTF error clarification When an APAR has HOLD ERROR, you should not do anything until IBM resolves the error. So SMP/E is doing what it is supposed to do. Prevent you from installing fixes that could harm your system. With these types of issues I raise an SR to IBM and ask when this error

Re: PTF error clarification

the bug being fixed by the original PTF. Rex -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf Of Jake Anderson Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 6:02 AM To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: PTF error clarification Hi, I am applying few

Re: PTF error clarification

In , on 12/22/2015 at 05:32 PM, Jake Anderson said: >Does that mean, I have to receive the APAR If there is a PTF that resolves the APAR, receive that. If not, and there is an APAR fix, receive