Re: OVRPRTF OVRSCOPE(*JOB)

[CRPence <CRPbottle@xxxxxxxxx>]

  The merged override example shows _adding_ the COPIES() 
parameter, whereas the scenario presented by the OP desires an 
override of the original override to use COPIES(5); i.e. wants to 
replace COPIES(5) with COPIES(99).  Although an added parameter can 
become merged, a newer parameter specification can not replace the 
original specification on the same parameter, except when using a 
SECURE override.  However with a secured override, although enabling 
replacing COPIES(5) with COPIES(99), the stated desire to keep the 
original parameter specifications unchanged becomes the new 
challenge since the new secured override needs to extract those and 
add them to the new OVRPRTF invocation.

Regards, Chuck

sjl wrote:
> Have you tried what you indicate below? This is the way that
> overrides  work!
>
> Within a job, subsequent file overrides (as long as done at the 
> same or higher call level) made to the same file are 'merged'
> with the original file override.
>
> For example, from the command line I just executed the command:
> OVRPRTF FILE(QSYSPRT) PAGESIZE(*N 198) CPI(15) OVRSCOPE(*JOB)
>
> DSPOVR shows:
>
> File             Type         Keyword Specifications
> QSYSPRT   PRT          PAGESIZE(*N 198.000 *ROWCOL) CPI(15)
>
>
> Next, I execute the following command:
> OVRPRTF FILE(QSYSPRT) COPIES(99)
>
>
> DSPOVR now shows:
>
> File             Type         Keyword Specifications
> QSYSPRT   PRT          PAGESIZE(*N 198.000 *ROWCOL) COPIES(99) CPI(15)
>
>
> Timothy wrote:
> > I need to do an OVRPRTF OVRSCOPE(*JOB), and then later do an
> > OVRPRTF to the same printer file, but only affect the parms I
> > specify.
> >
> > Example:
> >
> > OVRPRTF FILE(PRT1) DEV(D1) OUTQ(OUTPUTQUE1) COPIES(5)
> > OVRSCOPE(*JOB)
> >
> > then do
> >
> > OVRPRTF FILE(PRT1) COPIES(99)
> >
> > I need the second override to only change the COPIES, and leave
> > everything else from the first override intact.
> >
> > I've searched the archives and IBM's site and can't find an
> > answer.
> >
> > Any thoughts?