Re: BPXBATCH "SH ...; su; pax ..." does not do what you think it does (was: rsync anyone?)

2015-12-29 Thread Paul Gilmartin
On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:01:15 +0100, Peter Hunkeler wrote: > >To run commands in a "su" shell environment, you have to write all the >commands into a UNIX file first, and then call "su" by redirecting stdin to >that UNIX file. > >echo "id" > /tmp/sucommandfile >su < /tmp/sucommandfile > >This

Re: BPXBATCH "SH ...; su; pax ..." does not do what you think it does (was: rsync anyone?)

2015-12-29 Thread Chris Hoelscher
does not do what you think it does ... or, in the words of Inigo Montoya .. you keep using that command. I do not think it means what you think it means ... Chris Hoelscher Technology Architect, Database Infrastructure Services Technology Solution Services : humana.com 123 East Main Street

Re: BPXBATCH "SH ...; su; pax ..." does not do what you think it does (was: rsync anyone?)

2015-12-29 Thread John McKown
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Peter Hunkeler wrote: > ​ > > To run commands in a "su" shell environment, you have to write all the > commands into a UNIX file first, and then call "su" by redirecting stdin to > that UNIX file. > > > echo "id" > /tmp/sucommandfile > su <

Re: BPXBATCH "SH ...; su; pax ..." does not do what you think it does (was: rsync anyone?)

2015-12-29 Thread John McKown
On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Chris Hoelscher wrote: > does not do what you think it does ... > > or, in the words of Inigo Montoya .. > > you keep using that command. I do not think it means what you think it > means ... > ​What am I missing on that. I'm always

Re: BPXBATCH "SH ...; su; pax ..." does not do what you think it does (was: rsync anyone?)

2015-12-29 Thread Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
In <29b16432403d6c45a9bee5f0302d191779ba2...@vss-exchmb1.sfg.corp.LOCAL>, on 12/29/2015 at 06:24 PM, "Pommier, Rex" said: >The only thing you're missing on Chris' response was the movie >reference. Movie? The book came first. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz,

Re: BPXBATCH "SH ...; su; pax ..." does not do what you think it does (was: rsync anyone?)

2015-12-29 Thread Pommier, Rex
John, The only thing you're missing on Chris' response was the movie reference. He was making a play on a line said by Inigo Montoya in the movie "The Princess Bride". The actual quote is "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means". Rex -Original

Re: BPXBATCH "SH ...; su; pax ..." does not do what you think it does (was: rsync anyone?)

2015-12-29 Thread Skip Robinson
This thread is driving me crazy. It's the last week of 2015, so scr*w the rules. All week is Friday. I encountered an omen this morning. On my local NPR station--KPCC--there was a discussion of death and how it's clinically determined and officially declared. It's not a bipolar condition,

AW: Re: BPXBATCH "SH ...; su; pax ..." does not do what you think it does (was: rsync anyone?)

2015-12-29 Thread Peter Hunkeler
>>echo "id" > /tmp/sucommandfile >>su < /tmp/sucommandfile >> >>This will show uid=0, because it is the sub shell (uid=0), which is reading >>from /tmp/sucommandfile as if it >was stdin, and execute the commands found >>therein. >> >Did this work for you on z/OS? Looking for alternatives on a

BPXBATCH "SH ...; su; pax ..." does not do what you think it does (was: rsync anyone?)

2015-12-29 Thread Peter Hunkeler
> sh cd /u/zfs;su;pax -rwvCMX -p eW . /u/hfs This does not do what you think it does. The pax command will run under the initial uid and not with uid=o as you might hope. I recently explained this on the RACF-L list as follows: Starting in the initial shell process, most (shell) commands