have enough of this in the world these days? Can't we
be decent and civil to each other?
Is it really THAT difficult?
Doug Fuerst
-- Original Message --
From "Jon Perryman"
To IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Date 10/31/2023 20:04:24 PM
Subject Re: SCHEDIRB Jon Perryman i
On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 23:15:44 +, Doug Fuerst wrote:
>I am not OK with any of it, and after Mr. Johnson, I suspect the list is
>not as well.
I'm also not ok with this but it's Crayford you should be calling out. By
ignoring his insults the first couple of times, I showed far more respect and
keep this civil and professional.
Please?
Doug Fuerst
-- Original Message --
From "Jon Perryman"
To IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Date 10/31/2023 19:06:25 PM
Subject Re: SCHEDIRB Jon Perryman is correct re-linked as AC=1 no ABEND
ON SVC 8
On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 21:53:36 +
On Tue, 31 Oct 2023 21:53:36 +, Doug Fuerst wrote:
>Did we just trade Bill Johnson for Jon Perryman? Are you two related? We
>are back to backbiting and insults.
>Can we just stop?
If I'm showing a pattern of being confused or being constantly wrong (as
claimed by Crayford), please show me
erryman is correct re-linked as AC=1 no ABEND
ON SVC 8
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 14:35:45 +, Peter Relson wrote:
As this related to a purported need to link with AC=1,
I was perfectly sure that that was not correct. And I remain so.
Is it truly a coincidence that this group failed in 1 week
On Fri, 29 Sep 2023 14:35:45 +, Peter Relson wrote:
> As this related to a purported need to link with AC=1,
> I was perfectly sure that that was not correct. And I remain so.
Is it truly a coincidence that this group failed in 1 week to solve a simple
SCHEDIRB and LOAD failin
Looking into it now
> On Sep 29, 2023, at 10:36 AM, Peter Relson wrote:
>
>
>>
>> even Peter Relson wasn't sure if this correct
>
> As this related to a purported need to link with AC=1, I was perfectly sure
> that that was not correct. And I rema
> even Peter Relson wasn't sure if this correct
As this related to a purported need to link with AC=1, I was perfectly sure
that that was not correct. And I remain so.
Joe R: you've mentioned multiple times that you abended after the load.
But did you ever share what abend code and
. It's not obvious that generated eye catchers and default
values were copied or if the area was simply zeroed.
3. Use "save (R14,R12),'exit eyecatcher' will simplify debugging when looking
at a dump for the PSW address.
4. I believe that LOAD will abend if the module
of external function that uses supported interfaces and
returns the information using IRXEXCOM.
Rob
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 3:58 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject
On Wed, 9 May 2018 06:23:42 -0500, Steve Horein wrote:
>On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 6:33 AM, Peter Relson wrote:
>>
>> I believe you. The code that was shown was assembler. Regardless, being an
>> exec still means that the choice was made not to use an intended
>> programming interface.
>>
>
>If a da
On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 6:33 AM, Peter Relson wrote:
>
>
> I believe you. The code that was shown was assembler. Regardless, being an
> exec still means that the choice was made not to use an intended
> programming interface.
>
If a data area is described with "Programming Interface Informatio
On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 10:24 AM, Seymour J Metz wrote:
> Why? Wouldn't it be better to put facilities requiring assembler into
> function packages so that other REXX scripts can use them? It's no rocket
> science.
>
It's Friday. And I hit my head last night on a hard object (stumbling to
b-room
n List on behalf of
John McKown
Sent: Friday, May 4, 2018 7:44 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: AC(1)
On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 6:33 AM, Peter Relson wrote:
> ...the logic above is done on _every_ OPEN for _every_ DD
> name. Or is it only if the OPEN is for a DCB which is B
On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 6:33 AM, Peter Relson wrote:
> ...the logic above is done on _every_ OPEN for _every_ DD
> name. Or is it only if the OPEN is for a DCB which is BPAM (i.e. the DD
> concatenation is for libraries)?
>
>
> I'm not sure, but since APF authorization applies only to load librar
...the logic above is done on _every_ OPEN for _every_ DD
name. Or is it only if the OPEN is for a DCB which is BPAM (i.e. the DD
concatenation is for libraries)?
I'm not sure, but since APF authorization applies only to load libraries,
I'd imagine that the OPEN processing is done
only for case
MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: AC(1)
On 5/3/2018 4:47 AM, Peter Relson wrote:
> ... IPLINFO itself must have been changed when dynamic APF was
> introduced but chose not to use the provided programming interface
> (CSVAPF REQUEST=LIST) to gain access to the data.
Umm... IPLINFO is a R
On 5/3/2018 4:47 AM, Peter Relson wrote:
... IPLINFO itself must have been changed
when dynamic APF was introduced but chose not to use the provided
programming interface (CSVAPF REQUEST=LIST) to gain access to the data.
Umm... IPLINFO is a REXX exec.
As such, it cannot invoke z/OS system serv
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 6:47 AM, Peter Relson wrote:
> Whether a dataset is SMS-managed or not has no relevance to the
> information displayed by the program, but has relevance to whether or not
> there is a "match". That match is done as part of "Open" processing, for
> example.
>
> An APF list e
Whether a dataset is SMS-managed or not has no relevance to the
information displayed by the program, but has relevance to whether or not
there is a "match". That match is done as part of "Open" processing, for
example.
An APF list entry created by a specification such as DSN(MY.DSN) SMS will
Peter,
The CBT program uses code from Mark Zelden's IPLINFO to get a list of APF
libraries (he is credited).
In assembler this is
L R1,16 point to CVT
L R1,140(,R1) point to CVTECVT
L R1,228(,R1) point to CSV tab
On 5/2/2018 9:29 AM, Seymour J Metz wrote:
I suppose that "No, you told me that YOU BELIEVED all libraries are
authorized!" is not politically correct.
I would simply state that abend047 proves the job step is not
authorized. Therefore, we must investigate every avenue to find out why...
--
day, May 1, 2018 3:34 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: AC(1)
You overestimate some customers. If a customer says "yes, we're sure all the
libraries are authorized" and you say "do a D PROG,APF and see if all the
libraries are in there" the customer will quite
Does the CBT Tape program mentioned take into account all of
Data set name (surely it does)
Volume (very likely)
whether the data set is SMS-managed or not
?
Peter Relson
z/OS Core Technology Design
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / s
"WE TOLD YOU ALL OF THE LIBRARIES ARE AUTHORIZED."
The reply of a novice or manager LOL
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Charles Mills
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 2:34 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject
ZED."
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Steve Beaver
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 11:28 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: AC(1)
D PROG, APF
Is a lot less work
---
[mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Steve Beaver
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 2:28 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: AC(1)
D PROG, APF
Is a lot less work
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Charles Mills
On Tue, 1 May 2018 11:33:07 -0700, Ed Jaffe wrote:
>
>It might be nice if DDLIST had an A[PF] column, with a checkbox to
>indicate APF authorized, on the data set list you see at entry -- which
>includes STEPLIB data sets. Or maybe just have APF authorized rows
>displayed in a different color.
>
>B
On 5/1/2018 8:21 AM, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
On Tue, 1 May 2018 08:03:03 -0700, Ed Jaffe wrote:
I usually tell customers to resolve such problems by comparing the
suspect //STEPLIB against the list of data sets shown by the "APF"
subcommand of the free-and-included ISPF "DDLIST" command, paying
D PROG, APF
Is a lot less work
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Charles Mills
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 1:02 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: AC(1)
Ha!
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM
Ha!
Charles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of John Gateley
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 10:21 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: AC(1)
Hi Charles
File 953 on the CBT contains a program LISTAPF which checks
Hi Charles
File 953 on the CBT contains a program LISTAPF which checks every load library
in the STEPLIB or JOBLIB against the APF list.
Regards
John
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions,
send email
-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Ed Jaffe
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 8:03 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: AC(1)
On 5/1/2018 7:04 AM, Charles Mills wrote:
> Usually it turns out that "every library in the STEPLIB conca
On Tue, 1 May 2018 08:03:03 -0700, Ed Jaffe wrote:
>On 5/1/2018 7:04 AM, Charles Mills wrote:
>> Usually it turns out that "every library in the STEPLIB concatenation" means
>> "EVERY library in the STEPLIB concatenation."
>
>Agreed. That is the problem 99% of the time.
>
>I usually tell customer
On 5/1/2018 7:04 AM, Charles Mills wrote:
Usually it turns out that "every library in the STEPLIB concatenation" means "EVERY
library in the STEPLIB concatenation."
Agreed. That is the problem 99% of the time.
I usually tell customers to resolve such problems by comparing the
suspect //STEPL
Yep. I have considered it.
CharlesSent from a mobile; please excuse the brevity.
Original message From: Seymour J Metz Date:
5/1/18 7:55 AM (GMT-08:00) To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU Subject: Re: AC(1)
If that's a common problem, do an RDJFCB for the STEPLIB and check
t on behalf of
Charles Mills
Sent: Tuesday, May 1, 2018 10:04 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: AC(1)
I can think of one use: I have dealt with support calls from a customer or
prospect of the form "your program reports it is running non-authorized but we
are SURE we did everythin
harles
-Original Message-
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of Ed Jaffe
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2018 8:42 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: AC(1)
On 4/30/2018 6:06 PM, Walt Farrell wrote:
>
> But it's a good question, as merel
On 4/30/2018 6:06 PM, Walt Farrell wrote:
But it's a good question, as merely wanting to know if you were linked AC(1)
seems not terribly useful to a running program.
Hardly useful at all since -- for the purposes of APF authorization --
even when loaded from an APF authorized library,
On Mon, 30 Apr 2018 16:54:22 -0700, Charles Mills wrote:
>Do you want to query AC(1) specifically or whether you are running
>authorized, which requires AC(1) plus an all-APF-authorized STEPLIB
>concatenation?
No, running authorized does not (necessarily) require AC(1).
Assuming cons
Do you want to query AC(1) specifically or whether you are running
authorized, which requires AC(1) plus an all-APF-authorized STEPLIB
concatenation?
TESTAUTH FCTN=1 (as @Daniel writes) will give you whether or not you meet
*all* of the requirements and are actually running authorized. That is
On Monday, April 30, 2018 at 5:43:52 AM UTC-7, Ernest Nachtigall wrote:
>> Can a program (ASM) determine at run time if it has been linked AC(1)?
> Looks like CSVQUERY OUTATTR2= will give you that.
How about TESTAU
42 matches
Mail list logo
