RE: MF99010 and 35 page cover letter -- MIDRANGE-L

Chuck and Larry,

When I read your responses carefully, it makes sense. I'm training someone
else in this process, and I could not explain the MF99008 and MF99010
values..
Always appreciate the details,
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: MIDRANGE-L [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
CRPence
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2015 4:50 PM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: MF99010 and 35 page cover letter

On 19-Oct-2015 13:18 -0500, Jim Franz wrote:

Preparing to load cume and groups V7R1 after not updating this system
in a while.
Very large cover letter for MF99010

......If PTF 5770999-MF99008 is not Permanently applied nor superseded
by a Permanently applied PTF, there may not be enough reserved
loadsource storage available to install PTF 5770999-MF99010.
To prevent the PTF install from failing with CPF362C (Insufficient
storage for Licensed Internal Code fix), ....

Is MF99008 on our system if all I see is "superseded by MF99010" , but
MF99010 is not loaded, except Cover Letter.

To clarify, the output below from the Display PTF (DSPPTF) can not be
properly characterized as saying that the PTF MF99008 is "superseded by
MF99010". Shown are actually two distinct /supersede/ designations.
One is the "Latest superseding PTF" line that shows "MF99010", but the other
is the "Superseded by" line that shows "None".

Product ID/PTF ID . . . . . . . . . . : 5770999 MF99008
Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : V7R1M0

On order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : No
PTF save file . . . . . . . . . . . . : No
PTF status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : Superseded
Latest superseding PTF . . . . . . . . : MF99010
Superseded by . . . . . . . . . . . . : None
Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :
Unattended IPL action . . . . . . . . : None
Optional part . . . . . . . . . . . . : *BASE
PTF library . . . . . . . . . . . . . :
Cover letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . : Yes

Thus seemingly, a more proper characterization of the PTF MF99008 would
be "superseded by nothing", and PTF MF99008 merely has the possibility of
being "superseded by MF99010". And even if properly characterized as
"superseded by PTF MF99010", because neither MF99008 nor MF99010 show as
"permanently applied", the warning is applicable to the described situation
whereby the actions documented to prevent an issue with insufficient
"reserved loadsource storage available to install PTF 5770999-MF99010" must
be performed before applying MF99010.

As I see it:

According to just that information, MF99008 is not applied; the existence
of MF99008 could even exists merely as a /logical/ condition vs /physical/
[though the above DSPPTF output shows the PTF MF99008 does exist as a
cover-letter], and only logically present by virtue of having the
superseding PTF MF99010 registered with *SERVICE.

Additionally, that MF99010 is the "Latest Superseding PTF", but is not
also the PTF designated as the "Superseded By". The latter designation
being "None", which implies the "Latest superseding PTF" is merely a
potential\candidate for Superseded-By.

Thus the quote "PTF 5770999-MF99008 is not Permanently applied nor
superseded by a Permanently applied PTF" is applicable; the situation on
that system is described by that concern noted in the PTF cover letter for
MF99010. Therefore the actions that are noted to be preventive to the
/insufficient load-source storage/ issue should be performed, before
applying that newer cumulative PTF package.

How can a cover letter "supersede" an applied PTF (or am I
misunderstanding what supersede means...)?

I will try to explain:

A PTF is potentially both code and Coverletter, though may only be the
latter; any code with a PTF may supersede other code, or may just be exit
program(s). Regardless of what comprises the PTF, the PTFs exist in a
/chain/ since from the earliest\oldest to the latest\newest; in a chain of
just one PTF, there is neither a superseding PTF nor a superseded PTF, so
the newest=oldest. The /logical/ chain is present, irrespective the
existence of any actual physical link\PTF of the chain.

The PTF 5770999-MF99010 exists [in *SERVICE] because that PTF
[cover-letter] was ordered. So even if ordered just as a PTF cover-letter,
the logical PTF chain is now in existence on the system; i.e. a PTF is a
PTF, whether as just a PTF cover-letter or as more than just the
cover-letter. With that newer PTF MF99010 came the logical existence of the
MF99008, whether that older PTF had ever physically existed on the system or
not.

Had the request to DSPPTF 5770999 SELECT(MF99008) been performed
*before* downloading PTF [cover-letter] 5770999-MF99010 into *SERVICE, then
the error "PTF MF99008 not found" would have been issued; i.e.
MF99008 does not exist physically on the system. Similarly, if after RMVPTF
5770999 SELECT(MF99010) RMV(*PERM) was performed, because then the
logically-only existence of MF99008 goes-away with the removal of the
physical PTF 5770999-MF99010 [even as just a cover-letter].

--
Regards, Chuck

--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx To subscribe, unsubscribe,
or change list options,
visit: http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx Before posting, please take a
moment to review the archives at http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.