On 2/14/2018 9:47 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
That is correct. And there is no need to apply A or B if you plan
to apply C. But there should be no harm in specifying all three in
the apply. If it doesn't work, at least one of the PTFs must be
incorrectly constructed.
Does the check for whether a
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Peter
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2018 4:17 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: Apply error WAS product
This time again it failed
BPXF140E RETURN CODE 0090, REASON CODE 0549010C
On Wed, 14 Feb 2018 07:50:46 -0600, Tom Marchant wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 23:27:35 +, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
>
>>I thought that if PTF A was superseded by B, and B superseded
>>by C, then SMPE would only install only C and mark A and B as
>>SUP'D. That logic, if it obtains, always made s
Matthew Stitt wrote:
With WAS, I've encountered certain PTFs (fixpacks) which supersede other ones
and create errors like this when both (or more) fixpacks are being applied at
once. The solution I've found is to apply each fixpack separately.
And indeed, there are some with HOLDs for ACTIO
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 23:27:35 +, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
>I thought that if PTF A was superseded by B, and B superseded
>by C, then SMPE would only install only C and mark A and B as
>SUP'D. That logic, if it obtains, always made sense to me.
That is correct. And there is no need to apply A
Apply error WAS product
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 16:52:06 -0600, Matthew Stitt wrote:
>With WAS, I've encountered certain PTFs (fixpacks) which supersede other ones
>and create errors like this when both (or more) fixpacks are being applied at
>once. The solution I've found
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 16:52:06 -0600, Matthew Stitt wrote:
>With WAS, I've encountered certain PTFs (fixpacks) which supersede other ones
>and create errors like this when both (or more) fixpacks are being applied at
>once. The solution I've found is to apply each fixpack separately.
>
That sound
With WAS, I've encountered certain PTFs (fixpacks) which supersede other ones
and create errors like this when both (or more) fixpacks are being applied at
once. The solution I've found is to apply each fixpack separately.
HTH
Matthew
On Tue, 13 Feb 2018 10:13:18 -0500, John Eells wrote:
>D
Did you open a PMR?
Please do, if not; and, please post the PMR number.
Peter wrote:
This time again it failed
BPXF140E RETURN CODE 0090, REASON CODE 0549010C. A LINK FAILED FOR
LINK NAME /usr/lpp/InstallationManagerRepository/HBBO850/IBM
/../bbodrmak.
--
John Eells
IBM Poughkeepsie
ee
This time again it failed
BPXF140E RETURN CODE 0090, REASON CODE 0549010C. A LINK FAILED FOR
LINK NAME /usr/lpp/InstallationManagerRepository/HBBO850/IBM
/../bbodrmak.
*Reason Code : 0549010C*
BPXFSLNK 03/10/11
JRLnkAcrossFilesets: The service tried to link across file
systems
Action: Rei
Confused. You mention V10, link seems to indicate V8.5 and Liberty.
Hopefully some of this helps.
Liberty split from WebSphere maintenance V8.5.5.9.
My understanding, as of V9, SMPE no longer applies maintenance to the local
repositories, etc. just to the samples jobs (A/SBBOJCL).
Take a look
n List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Peter
> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2018 8:01 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
> Subject: Re: Apply error WAS product
>
> This is a monoplex... The program directory of the product didn't mention
> about this mo
This is a monoplex... The program directory of the product didn't mention
about this mount points ... It sounded like a product bug...
On 10-Feb-2018 8:17 PM, "Lizette Koehler" wrote:
> Some Questions
>
> Is the LPAR this is running on, where the mount files reside?
>
> For example, you only h
Some Questions
Is the LPAR this is running on, where the mount files reside?
For example, you only have one LPAR this can run on? Or is this a SYSPLEX and
it can run on more than one system?
If this is a sysplex, make sure the file mounted where the job runs. To do
this, logon that that syst
14 matches
Mail list logo
