As the customer would still have PTF X installed I assume the outcome
depends on how the exploitation in PTF X is implemented - a hard
dependency would probably cause another problem to show up?
Birger Heede
IBM
Paul Gilmartin wrote:
In a recent note, Tom Marchant said:
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 12:07:15 -0600
Suppose PTF X includes modules A and B. It becomes PE. The code
in B is ok, but the code in A needs to be replaced. The vendor
then has two choices. Either SUP X with a PTF Y containing A and
B or provide a PTF containing just A with a PRE to pick up B.
Suppose a more extreme case. The vendor has previously issued
PTF W, which added new function in module C. Subsequently, the
vendor issues PTF X, containing updated modules A and B, which
newly exploit the function introduced by PTF W. But the vendor
fails to declare the dependency on W, and a customer who APPLYs
X but not W reports a problem. The vendor can repair this
simply by issuing "++ HOLD (X) ERROR REASON(W) ...
There is no commonality of elements. Can a customer then cause
a malign regression by RESTOREing W but not X? TFM appears not
to prohibit this, despite the ++HOLD. I asked about this in:
http://bama.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0610&L=ibm-main&P=150582
but received no definitive answer, possibly because Shane asked
Kurt not to reply.
-- gil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO
Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
