Re: Three PTF questions

On 24 Jun 2013 09:36, John McKee wrote:

1) System has 867 PTFs temporarily applied.

The text of the second question seems to call-into-question that claim.? Does that 867 reflect a total, having counted those PTFs displayed at each of the interactive panels successively presented by having pressed Enter to review the PTFs for each LICPGM?

Since they are already installed, is there any danger of a link
loader issue when they are permanently applied? I am unclear as to
whether the link loader error manifested itself on temporarily or
permanently applying PTFs.

The LL is relevant only to the LIC PTFs. Only those PTFs in\for the product 57xx999, for the product library identified with\as QGPL, are processed via the Link Loader. AFaIK any Link Loader space issues should arise only with the loading and\or temporarily applying of the PTFs in that product; i.e. if any LL space error occurred during perm-apply processing in that product, the error message would be a diagnosis of an existing\prior problem, because permanent application should only reduce the required space.

<<SNIP>> A bit odd, but there are two PTFs with status of "On order
only".

I am unsure of why that is considered odd, because that is a valid status. The system is awaiting the order to result in a load of the PTF into service. The means of effecting that loading, the effective or explicit LODPTF activity, depends on the delivery method that was chosen when the order was placed.

2) I did DSPPTF OUTPUT(*OUTFILE) OUTFILE(QTEMP/PTF). The command
has a default of *ALL for Product.

Not that it applies in the scenario, but... there are two positional parameters and two other parameters, each with a default value. Those were unspecified, and thus the reader can only assume what that request might actually effect.

The outfile lists 5722SS1 for every PTF. A DSPPTF to screen shows all
products. I thought this was unusual. Is it?

Seems unexpected from my recollection. The interactive output-to-display of the Display PTF feature would require Enter be pressed to see each different product, but output to either spool\print or to an output file should list everything selected according to the various parameters on DSPPTF that effect that selection criteria; i.e. the first four parameters, LICPGM, SELECT, RLS, and COVERONLY. I would recommend reviewing to ensure the default invocation effects, or the explicit invocation effects:
DSPPTF LICPGM(*ALL) SELECT(*ALL) RLS(*ALL) COVERONLY(*NO) OUTPUT(*OUTFILE) OUTFILE(QTEMP/PTF)

I do not recall if the displayed-output interface may ignore the selection implied by those other parameters; there is no obvious statement implying a difference, in the newest docs. But if on the *OUTFILE request, if RLS(V5R4M0) had been specified or defaulted, instead of RLS(*ALL), then if the installed LIC release is V5R4M5, then all of the 5722999 PTFs would have been excluded.

Wondering if application of a CUME at some point was relevant.
Former SA was just not "into" PTFs.

I am unsure how to interpret the former comment, but with regard to the latter, the following emoticon expresses my reaction: :-(

3) For product 5722999 there are four PTFs listed (MH01007,
MH01004, MH01001, and MH00997) with status "Permanently
applied - IPL". All appear to have been applied 1/09/11.
Multiple IPLs have been performed since then.

Are those listed in the Output File, and if so, do they incorrectly show the "Product ID" as 5722SS1 as alluded in the text of the first question?

I know only real issue is permanently applying temporarily applied
PTFs before upgrade to clean out old save files.

That action to effect cleanliness is preferable, but not absolutely necessary. And I am sure there are other _possible issues_ to be concerned with, beyond just the cleanliness :-)

But, questions 2 and 3 just seem odd.

The more I think on the noted inconsistency in the output of the displayed vs outfile, I wonder if maybe the effects have an origin from a common error with improper restore activity against the QUSRSYS library.

If there is any TEXT() for any file or member in any of the following requests, then there may be an error with the PTF database that needs to be resolved due to a past usage issue that effectively /corrupted/ the PTF database:

wrkf qusrsys/qapz*
dspfd qusrsys/qapz* *mbrlist (*) fileatr(*pf)