True, it doesn't sound very logical.
I don't have the TXT file that came with 35849 ( deleted it I think), but the text file with 28697 indicates that it is 28697. Both acted the same way.
Both were single volumes. Both verified correctly. Guess I can't rule out corruption.
pmassiello-ml@xxxxxxxxxxxx 12/17/2009 9:48:23 AM >>>
Not sure that was it. Did you have multiple volumes in the PTF image
catalogue? Did you have the Right image loaded into the catalogue? I have
used *IMGCAT for PTFs without having those specific PTFs on a system. I
don't think you had the right image in the catalogue/
Pete
Pete Massiello
iTech Solutions
http://www.itechsol.com
Add iTech Solutions on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=126431824120
Add iTech Solutionw on LinkedIn:
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=2206093
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Buddy McClean
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2009 10:37 AM
To: midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: Verify IMGCLG Fails
Once I tried applying 35849 with a savf instead of bin and virtual opt, it
applied fine and now the catalog verifies just like it was supposed to. I
think I was trying to use a method of applying a PTF, when the PTF is
required to use the method. Like expecting to drive to the auto parts store
using the broken car that your going to the store to buy parts for.
I suppose I'll have to break down and check out SNDPTFORD.
rob@xxxxxxxxx 12/17/2009 7:26:59 AM >>>
Give SNDPTFORD a try. Back in the day, that was pretty much the way,
(other than ordering them on media).
Remember the reorder parameter.
Rob Berendt
midrange.com
