RE: VFYIMGCLG Sort

Jerry,

In the latest set of CDs, the 9th and 10th CDs are the Groups and
Hipers. So you really have one set of 8 CDs (1 to 8) and a second set of 2
CDs (9 and 10). I always put my Groups and Hipers on first and then my
Cumulative CDs. This will make the overall process faster, as the Groups
and Hipers have newer PTFs. If you put the Cumulative on first, it will put
all those PTFs down, and then the new PTFs on the Groups and Hipers will
supersede some of the ones which you just put down, making more work.

I wonder if these was your issues.

Pete Massiello

-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jerry Adams
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 10:52 AM
To: Midrange-L
Subject: VFYIMGCLG Sort

This morning, after downloading the latest cume for v5r4 and loading it
to the virtual optical drive, I ran (as I usually do) the VFYIMGCLG
SORT(*Yes).

Usually, in fact always in the past, this has put the images in the same
order as the image number; e.g., SF99540_1.bin, SF99540_2.bin, etc. So
that, when I use the WRKIMGCLG command to view the catalogue, the index
numbers are the same sequence as the images. E.g., SF99540_1.bin is
index #1.

But today the first index number in the image catalogue was
SF99540_9.bin, the second index was SF99540_10.bin, the third index was
for another PTF group (SF99114_1.bin). The non-cume groups were in the
correct order, but SF99540_1.bin followed the non-cume images so that
SF99540_1.bin was index number 10.

I used the change option to put the images in (what I think is) the
correct order: SF99540_1.bin is now index #1, SF99540_10.bin is index
#10, SF99114_1.bin is index #11, etc. I.e., the same order in which I
would have inserted the physical CD's into the optical drive if I had
planned to load them manually.

First, anyone have any idea why the SORT(*Yes) sequencing of the image
catalogue indices came out in a different order from the physical image
number (_1, etc.)?

Second, based upon that answer, did I do the right thing by re-assigning
the index numbers? Or is the i OS PTF function smart enough to know
what order to use the images regardless of the image catalogue's index
number?

Thanks.