RE: VFYIMGCLG Sort

Not sure if I understand, but it seems to me that the sort may have placed the hyper & DB group PTFs
first, followed by the cume.

This is a recommended practice per IBM due to the fact that the group PTFs are newer than what's on
the cume. Why waste time loading a PTF from the cume that will be superseded by one in the group.

I don't think you'll cause any problems, but if it were me, I'd ask IBM about it to be sure.

Charles Wilt
Software Engineer
CINTAS Corporation - IT 92B
513.701.1307

wiltc@xxxxxxxxxx

-----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.

--
* Jerry C. Adams
*IBM System i Programmer/Analyst
B&W Wholesale Distributors, Inc.* *
voice
615.995.7024
fax
615.995.1201
email
jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


--
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.

This e-mail transmission contains information that is intended to be confidential and privileged. If you receive this e-mail and you are not a named addressee you are hereby notified that you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this communication without the consent of the sender and that doing so is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please reply to the message immediately by informing the sender that the message was misdirected. After replying, please delete and otherwise erase it and any attachments from your computer system. Your assistance in correcting this error is appreciated.