Maybe I didn't ask the question properly.
Most of the time a PTF that has been replaced with newer code, states superceded.
In this case, PTF states Permanently applied, even though there is newer, replacement PTF.
Is any of the Permanently applied code in effect?
From: MIDRANGE-L [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of rob@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 3:10 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: Re: PTF superseded question
SI50997 was superseded by SI52200
Let's suppose that SI50997 was flawed. And caused your system to hang and disk to automatically reformat all drives in ASP 1, after posting your pay scale at wikileaks, and all documents involving current litigation on Facebook. Now, let's say IBM came out with a fix and called it SI52200.
You download it and apply it. SI52200 changes SI50997 from applied to superceeded (by SI52200).
Now let me ask you, is that really a difference?
IBM Certified System Administrator - IBM i 6.1 Group Dekko Dept 1600 Mail to: 2505 Dekko Drive
Garrett, IN 46738
Ship to: Dock 108
Kendallville, IN 46755
From: "Steinmetz, Paul" <PSteinmetz@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Midrange Systems Technical Discussion'"
Date: 05/20/2014 11:10 AM
Subject: PTF superseded question
Sent by: "MIDRANGE-L" <midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
If a PTF is superseded, is there an issue if on one LPAR it states Perm
Applied instead of Superseded.
SI50997 was superseded by SI52200.
SI52200 Permanently applied
SI52200 Temporarily applied
SI50997 Permanently applied ???????
IBM i Systems Administrator
Pencor Services, Inc.
462 Delaware Ave
Palmerton Pa 18071
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2014 by MIDRANGE dot 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 here. If you have questions about this, please contact