On 19-Oct-2015 13:18 -0500, Jim Franz wrote:
Preparing to load cume and groups V7R1 after not updating this system
in a while.
Very large cover letter for MF99010
......If PTF 5770999-MF99008 is not Permanently applied nor
superseded by a Permanently applied PTF, there may not be enough
reserved loadsource storage available to install PTF 5770999-MF99010.
To prevent the PTF install from failing with CPF362C (Insufficient
storage for Licensed Internal Code fix), ....
Is MF99008 on our system if all I see is "superseded by MF99010" ,
but MF99010 is not loaded, except Cover Letter.
To clarify, the output below from the Display PTF (DSPPTF) can not be
properly characterized as saying that the PTF MF99008 is "superseded by
MF99010". Shown are actually two distinct /supersede/ designations.
One is the "Latest superseding PTF" line that shows "MF99010", but the
other is the "Superseded by" line that shows "None".
Product ID/PTF ID . . . . . . . . . . : 5770999 MF99008
Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : V7R1M0
On order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : No
PTF save file . . . . . . . . . . . . : No
PTF status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : Superseded
Latest superseding PTF . . . . . . . . : MF99010
Superseded by . . . . . . . . . . . . : None
Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :
Unattended IPL action . . . . . . . . : None
Optional part . . . . . . . . . . . . : *BASE
PTF library . . . . . . . . . . . . . :
Cover letter . . . . . . . . . . . . . : Yes
Thus seemingly, a more proper characterization of the PTF MF99008
would be "superseded by nothing", and PTF MF99008 merely has the
possibility of being "superseded by MF99010". And even if properly
characterized as "superseded by PTF MF99010", because neither MF99008
nor MF99010 show as "permanently applied", the warning is applicable to
the described situation whereby the actions documented to prevent an
issue with insufficient "reserved loadsource storage available to
install PTF 5770999-MF99010" must be performed before applying MF99010.
As I see it:
According to just that information, MF99008 is not applied; the
existence of MF99008 could even exists merely as a /logical/ condition
vs /physical/ [though the above DSPPTF output shows the PTF MF99008 does
exist as a cover-letter], and only logically present by virtue of having
the superseding PTF MF99010 registered with *SERVICE.
Additionally, that MF99010 is the "Latest Superseding PTF", but is
not also the PTF designated as the "Superseded By". The latter
designation being "None", which implies the "Latest superseding PTF" is
merely a potential\candidate for Superseded-By.
Thus the quote "PTF 5770999-MF99008 is not Permanently applied nor
superseded by a Permanently applied PTF" is applicable; the situation on
that system is described by that concern noted in the PTF cover letter
for MF99010. Therefore the actions that are noted to be preventive to
the /insufficient load-source storage/ issue should be performed, before
applying that newer cumulative PTF package.
How can a cover letter "supersede" an applied PTF (or am I
misunderstanding what supersede means...)?
I will try to explain:
A PTF is potentially both code and Coverletter, though may only be
the latter; any code with a PTF may supersede other code, or may just be
exit program(s). Regardless of what comprises the PTF, the PTFs exist
in a /chain/ since from the earliest\oldest to the latest\newest; in a
chain of just one PTF, there is neither a superseding PTF nor a
superseded PTF, so the newest=oldest. The /logical/ chain is present,
irrespective the existence of any actual physical link\PTF of the chain.
The PTF 5770999-MF99010 exists [in *SERVICE] because that PTF
[cover-letter] was ordered. So even if ordered just as a PTF
cover-letter, the logical PTF chain is now in existence on the system;
i.e. a PTF is a PTF, whether as just a PTF cover-letter or as more than
just the cover-letter. With that newer PTF MF99010 came the logical
existence of the MF99008, whether that older PTF had ever physically
existed on the system or not.
Had the request to DSPPTF 5770999 SELECT(MF99008) been performed
*before* downloading PTF [cover-letter] 5770999-MF99010 into *SERVICE,
then the error "PTF MF99008 not found" would have been issued; i.e.
MF99008 does not exist physically on the system. Similarly, if after
RMVPTF 5770999 SELECT(MF99010) RMV(*PERM) was performed, because then
the logically-only existence of MF99008 goes-away with the removal of
the physical PTF 5770999-MF99010 [even as just a cover-letter].
midrange.com
