f



PTF SI53636 MUST be applied before PTF SI57786

I recently did a sndptford for SF99710 cume and got level 16120 then a dspptfcvr to print. Part way through I get this one:

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
This PTF(SI53636) MUST be applied before PTF(SI57786). If PTF(SI57786) has been installed already, please remove it firstly then apply PTF(SI53636).

Normally I wouldn't expect instructions like this. One ptf normally supersedes the other and IBM sort it for me.
When I look at SI53636 it is already permanently installed, April this year, presumably as part of cume level 15317 or earlier. The only non cume or group ptf I installed recently was for pdm position to.

I think its likely I will never use includes for SQL debugger myself & I cant imagine any other s/w on our system using it either.

Does anyone have any suggestions? I cant remove a perm applied ptf as suggested. I am tempted to just make a backup of lib qsysinc and make a comparison once applied, before ignoring it as unimportant. 

Thanks,
Jonathan.
0
Jonathan
7/19/2016 10:39:51 AM
comp.sys.ibm.as400.misc 9219 articles. 4 followers. Post Follow

4 Replies
771 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 2

On 19-Jul-2016 05:39 -0500, Jonathan Bailey wrote:
> I recently did a SNDPTFORD for SF99710 cume and got level 16120
> then a DSPPTFCVR to print. Part way through I get this one:
>

[http://www-912.ibm.com/a_dir/as4ptf.NSF/ba69c1e74e2b109e862566ba005a8698/b89387f2c9a8abde86257efa007ea042?OpenDocument]
PTF# SI53636 - System Openness Includes
> SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: This PTF(SI53636) MUST be applied before
> PTF(SI57786). If PTF(SI57786) has been installed already, please
> remove it firstly then apply PTF(SI53636).
>
> Normally I wouldn't expect instructions like this. One PTF
> normally supersedes the other and IBM sort it for me. When I look at
> SI53636 it is already permanently installed, April this year,
> presumably as part of cume level 15317 or earlier. The only non cume
> or group PTF I installed recently was for PDM position to.
>
> I think it's likely I will never use includes for SQL debugger
> myself and I can't imagine any other s/w on our system using it
> either.
>
> Does anyone have any suggestions? I can't remove a perm applied
> PTF as suggested. I am tempted to just make a backup of lib QSYSINC
> and make a comparison once applied, before ignoring it as
> unimportant.
>

   You are correct that such instructions are not normal.  I would go as 
far as saying, that the text by that author reveals their lack of 
understanding about PTF; the process of creating\delivering *and* the 
processes for the use\application of PTFs in maintenance.  That they 
wrote "update 2 tes head file" in an external-faced memo is some 
indicative of their prowess; that text is meant to be read by IBM 
customers, many\most for whom English is not their first language, so 
'net-speak or similar vernaculars is not just unprofessional, but 
immature.  The PTF cover letter should never have passed review; if 
even, any was done.  As noted, once a PTF is *PERM applied, there is no 
opportunity for RMVPTF, so the author "MUST" not suggest such an 
absolute; not at least, without clarifying both the effects for *not* 
having done so "firstly" and the recovery steps for when [and given the 
PTF SI57786 is on the older cumulative c5317710, that "when" is going to 
be "quite often that"] the action can not be performed by the customer 
as they [the author] demands the customer "MUST".

   Given you ordered the PTF [via SNDPTFORD], I presume that means 
Software Support is available.  I would open a PMR and demand that they 
explain what are the consequences.  Really, why should your, or why 
would you, want to waste the time to make a backup of the library and 
try to compare?  Besides, not knowing the effect [per author left that 
unstated], if the effect for not having removed the PTF SI57786 is that 
the application of PTF SI53636 fails, then comparing QSYSINC from before 
and after is somewhat moot.

   p.s. And alternate interpretation of the PTF cover letter is the 
author suggesting application of *only* SI53636; i.e. they do not 
clearly express the need to apply the previously removed PTF, again, 
after applying the PTF that "MUST" be applied "firstly".  To infer that 
..secondly. one must re-apply the other PTF is to *assume*; so again, ask 
IBM via a PMR... and publish here what you find, because IBM is unlikely 
to make any changes to their PTF [cover letters] unless the effect is so 
severely negative that a PSP entry is warranted.

-- 
Regards, Chuck
0
CRPence
7/19/2016 12:16:54 PM
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 13:17:00 UTC+1, CRPence  wrote:
> On 19-Jul-2016 05:39 -0500, Jonathan Bailey wrote:
> > I recently did a SNDPTFORD for SF99710 cume and got level 16120
> > then a DSPPTFCVR to print. Part way through I get this one:
> >
> 
> [http://www-912.ibm.com/a_dir/as4ptf.NSF/ba69c1e74e2b109e862566ba005a8698/b89387f2c9a8abde86257efa007ea042?OpenDocument]
> PTF# SI53636 - System Openness Includes
> > SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: This PTF(SI53636) MUST be applied before
> > PTF(SI57786). If PTF(SI57786) has been installed already, please
> > remove it firstly then apply PTF(SI53636).
> >
> > Normally I wouldn't expect instructions like this. One PTF
> > normally supersedes the other and IBM sort it for me. When I look at
> > SI53636 it is already permanently installed, April this year,
> > presumably as part of cume level 15317 or earlier. The only non cume
> > or group PTF I installed recently was for PDM position to.
> >
> > I think it's likely I will never use includes for SQL debugger
> > myself and I can't imagine any other s/w on our system using it
> > either.
> >
> > Does anyone have any suggestions? I can't remove a perm applied
> > PTF as suggested. I am tempted to just make a backup of lib QSYSINC
> > and make a comparison once applied, before ignoring it as
> > unimportant.
> >
> 
>    You are correct that such instructions are not normal.  I would go as 
> far as saying, that the text by that author reveals their lack of 
> understanding about PTF; the process of creating\delivering *and* the 
> processes for the use\application of PTFs in maintenance.  That they 
> wrote "update 2 tes head file" in an external-faced memo is some 
> indicative of their prowess; that text is meant to be read by IBM 
> customers, many\most for whom English is not their first language, so 
> 'net-speak or similar vernaculars is not just unprofessional, but 
> immature.  The PTF cover letter should never have passed review; if 
> even, any was done.  As noted, once a PTF is *PERM applied, there is no 
> opportunity for RMVPTF, so the author "MUST" not suggest such an 
> absolute; not at least, without clarifying both the effects for *not* 
> having done so "firstly" and the recovery steps for when [and given the 
> PTF SI57786 is on the older cumulative c5317710, that "when" is going to 
> be "quite often that"] the action can not be performed by the customer 
> as they [the author] demands the customer "MUST".
> 
>    Given you ordered the PTF [via SNDPTFORD], I presume that means 
> Software Support is available.  I would open a PMR and demand that they 
> explain what are the consequences.  Really, why should your, or why 
> would you, want to waste the time to make a backup of the library and 
> try to compare?  Besides, not knowing the effect [per author left that 
> unstated], if the effect for not having removed the PTF SI57786 is that 
> the application of PTF SI53636 fails, then comparing QSYSINC from before 
> and after is somewhat moot.
> 
>    p.s. And alternate interpretation of the PTF cover letter is the 
> author suggesting application of *only* SI53636; i.e. they do not 
> clearly express the need to apply the previously removed PTF, again, 
> after applying the PTF that "MUST" be applied "firstly".  To infer that 
> .secondly. one must re-apply the other PTF is to *assume*; so again, ask 
> IBM via a PMR... and publish here what you find, because IBM is unlikely 
> to make any changes to their PTF [cover letters] unless the effect is so 
> severely negative that a PSP entry is warranted.
> 
> -- 
> Regards, Chuck

Latest reply from IBM says don't install yet. The emailed reply also highlights step 10 re. 5770999-MF99008 
I was hoping they would say omit the ptf & install but I can wait.

Jonathan
0
Jonathan
8/3/2016 3:09:07 PM
On 03-Aug-2016 10:09 -0500, Jonathan Bailey wrote:
>
> Latest reply from IBM says don't install yet. The emailed reply also
> highlights step 10 re. 5770999-MF99008
> I was hoping they would say omit the ptf & install but I can wait.
>

   My hope is that the author would have been quite embarrassed and 
humbled for their PTF [cover letter] being called-out, and thus hence, 
that they are reminded to [continue to] strive for the highest qualify 
in their provision of software maintenance.

   Although I stand here merely a mile from the lab, for lack of any 
access, I might as well be a million miles away. With access, I would 
probably be able to investigate the whole matter and offer recovery 
actions, quite possibly within a week, even having not been there since 
so many years; possibly also able to recommend a general resolution for 
the PTF chain and cumulative such that the newest PTF and cumulative 
would render-moot the prior special instructions -- such are the lack of 
time constraints for the long-term unemployed ;-)

-- 
Regards, Chuck
0
CRPence
8/3/2016 4:20:58 PM
On Tuesday, 19 July 2016 11:39:53 UTC+1, Jonathan Bailey  wrote:
> I recently did a sndptford for SF99710 cume and got level 16120 then a dspptfcvr to print. Part way through I get this one:
> 
> SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
> This PTF(SI53636) MUST be applied before PTF(SI57786). If PTF(SI57786) has been installed already, please remove it firstly then apply PTF(SI53636).
> 
> Normally I wouldn't expect instructions like this. One ptf normally supersedes the other and IBM sort it for me.
> When I look at SI53636 it is already permanently installed, April this year, presumably as part of cume level 15317 or earlier. The only non cume or group ptf I installed recently was for pdm position to.
> 
> I think its likely I will never use includes for SQL debugger myself & I cant imagine any other s/w on our system using it either.
> 
> Does anyone have any suggestions? I cant remove a perm applied ptf as suggested. I am tempted to just make a backup of lib qsysinc and make a comparison once applied, before ignoring it as unimportant. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Jonathan.

FYI
Bit of a delay to enjoy the British 'summer'
New superseding PTFs issued:
SI62042. Also, for V7R2 SI62037
No issues installing along with the cume.

Jonathan
0
Jonathan
8/22/2016 11:23:08 AM
Reply: