Re: PTF superseded question

On 20-May-2014 10:10 -0500, Steinmetz, Paul wrote:

If a PTF is superseded, is there an issue if on one LPAR it states
Perm Applied instead of Superseded.

I am very confident my recollection, and thus my portrayal in the remainder of my reply, is accurate with regard to an explanation of the described situation [and I am confident that someone will correct me if I am wrong]:

With the same superseding PTF applied, whether a superseded PTF has the status "Permanently applied" or "Superseded", both LPARs have the same PTF level. If a different PTF level betwixt is "an issue", then there is a /potential/ issue [for a mismatch to arise] *only if* the supersede is not permanently applied.

SI50997 was superseded by SI52200.

So for reference: "the supersede" is SI52200 and "the superseded PTF" is SI50997.

Lpar A
SI52200 Permanently applied
SI50997 Superseded

Because the supersede is perm-applied, the status of the superseded PTF is moot; i.e. there is no ability to lose the changes provided by the superseded PTF due to Remove PTF (RMVPTF) activity, because a perm-applied PTF can not be removed. On this LPAR-A, the status of SI50997 is moot, except to infer something historically about the chain of PTF apply activity.

If the supersede had been temp-applied, then the removal of the supersede would lose the changes from both PTFs because the status "Superseded" implies the PTF SI50997 was never applied; i.e. the existence of the fix [provided by that PTF number] is logical\logically-present [as part of the supersede], not physical\physically-present by that name. If the PTF SI50997 had been applied [anytime prior to its supersede], then the application of PTF SI52200 would have required PTF SI50997 to be permanently applied during the Load PTF (LODPTF) processing; i.e. the status of PTF SI50997 would have shown perm-applied.

Lpar B
SI52200 Temporarily applied
SI50997 Permanently applied ???????

Because the supersede is temp-applied, the status of the superseded PTF as perm-applied is relevant; i.e. there is no ability to lose the changes provided by the superseded PTF, due to Remove PTF (RMVPTF) activity, because only the supersede can be removed.

Of course per the supersede being only temp-applied, the potential exists that the LPAR-B can become down-level compared to LPAR-A, but only back to the prior PTF level [of the superseded PTF that was perm-applied].