Re: non-IBM objects in QGPL removed during OS upgrade -- MIDRANGE-L

× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.

Subject: Re: non-IBM objects in QGPL removed during OS upgrade
From: kirkg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 8 Aug 2007 15:20:32 -0700
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

I haven't seen that sort of thing happen in QGPL, at least in recent
releases. I can't see how the upgrade could 'replace' a non-IBM object
since IBM would have no idea what those are. I have seen where programmers
have named objects starting with Q's where they shouldn't and that might
cause a remove/delete some how.

QGPL today on a fresh install from IBM may only have slightly over 100
objects in it. If your site wants to stay out of QGPL, I wouldn't
complain

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.