While SMP/E may be somewhat cumbersome to use, it is the best
repository for keeping information on what exactly is the current
maintenance level of a software product. Unloaded libraries may be
easier to use but aren't any help when there is a problem and you need
to know what level the code is
As for other vendors shipping (only) non-SMP format, that's
generally because they have no idea of how to package their product.
Perhaps true for some vendors but not Innovation.
Our modules don't intersect or depend on any IBM modules, so the
checking done by SMP is not useful.
These days
You are thinking back to the days when UCC1 zapped IBM O/C/EOV modules
instead of using SVCs and exit points to install their code. With zaps
you MUST have the correct level of IBM code so pre-req entries were
required.
Jon L. Veilleux
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(860) 636-2683
My experience must
Exactly right. Back in the good old days when real sysprogs were cowboys
and COBOL programmers ran away, scared (and scarred).
*smirk*
--
Tom Schmidt
Madison, WI
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:50:56 -0400, Veilleux, Jon L wrote:
You are thinking back to the days when UCC1 zapped IBM O/C/EOV
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Tom Schmidt
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 1:05 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@BAMA.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: FW: Non-SMP/e packaging
Exactly right. Back in the good old days when real sysprogs were
cowboys and COBOL
Forwarded to the list - Russ, can you change you return address please
???.
I would think my opinions on non-SMP delivery should be well known.
IMHO CA-1 has been very good with regard to SMP for quite a while
now. Somewhat of a beacon in that corporation.
If it (unloaded, non-SMP delivery)
6 matches
Mail list logo
