On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 13:56:17 -0600, Joseph W. Beiter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"...But the vendor fails to declare the dependency..." > >Point right on. This is the vendors responsibility no? Else who/how to >protect the integrity of the maintenance chain? The customer? Yes, it is the vendor's responsibility to provide proper SMP, including all appropriate requisites. > >My original post was to try to understand other conditions where this >would be necessary as a standard way of doing business. It sounds like the >answer is no. Exceptions not withstanding, we should always expect that a >pe'd ptf will be removed from the chain or sup'd by the correcting >maintenance. thanks. Removed from the chain? What does that mean? You should always expect that that PTF that fixes a PE will PRE or SUP the PTF that it corrects. Actually, whenever two PTFs provide the same element, one of them must PRE or SUP the other. SUP is only used when the superceding PTF contains everything that the superceded PTF contains. -- Tom Marchant ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
