Re: PTF superseded question

On 21-May-2014 10:54 -0500, Paul Fenstermacher wrote:

I may be wrong but I think if a superseded PTF was applied to a
system it will show as Permanently applied. If a superseded PTF was
not on the system when the superseding PTF is applied it will show as
<ed: having a status of> superseded.

A PTF with Temporarily-applied status must be permanently applied [or permanently removed] to allow a superseding PTF to be applied. As I recall, the temp-applied PTF will be implicitly perm-applied at the time of the Load PTF (LODPTF) of the superseding PTF; or the Apply PTF (APYPTF) for APY(*PERM) could be done explicitly.

Thus "if a superseded PTF was applied to a system" when the superseding PTF was being loaded and applied, then the superseded PTF "will show as Permanently-applied" status, because that was the last action\status-change performed against the superseded PTF.

And if a superseded PTF was not applied to a system when the superseding PTF was being loaded and applied, then the superseded PTF will show as Superseded status. That PTF exists only logically within the PTF-chain against which no action\status-change is possible; i.e. there is no physical PTF loaded\applied against which either the APYPTF or RMVPTF could act, there is only the logical\conceptual existence of the fix-level provided with that PTF name.

Contrary to implications in some other replies, the effect is predictable and each status has a distinct and meaningful implication. A PTF with a Permanently-applied status can never be removed [but a re-install of the option could back-level]. A PTF with a Superseded status can be removed indirectly, being [logically] removed if\when the superseding PTF is removed; i.e. the fix-level will revert to whatever was the latest perm-applied PTF earlier in that PTF-chain [an earlier superseded PTF than the PTF with Superseded status].