On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 12:54:57 -0800, Jon Perryman wrote:
> ... I looked at a couple [dependent functions] from IBM very long ago. They
> basically used it to change FMID ownership of modules. Modules shipped in
> PTF's under the parent FMID would be ignored and only the new FMID modules
> would
osely used for lack of a
better term.
Jon Perryman.
>
> From: Paul Gilmartin
>To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
>Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2013 9:20 AM
>Subject: Re: SMP/E ++HOLD FMID() for dependent FUNCTION SYSMOD
>
>
>On Tue, 24 Dec
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 19:27:07 -0800, Jon Perryman wrote:
>Base and dependent functions are both coded thru a ++FUNCTION. I don't think
>there is a difference except for additional SMP/e statements making the base
>function a pre or co-req. The dependent function does not apply to the base
>funct
3 3:52 PM
>Subject: Re: SMP/E ++HOLD FMID() for dependent FUNCTION SYSMOD
>
>
>On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 14:50:47 -0800, Jon Perryman wrote:
>
>> You say "NOT TO THE FMID It APPLIES". What are you talking about?
>> A function sysmod applies to it's self. It may pr
On Tue, 24 Dec 2013 14:50:47 -0800, Jon Perryman wrote:
> You say "NOT TO THE FMID It APPLIES". What are you talking about?
> A function sysmod applies to it's self. It may pre or co-req another
> function but it does not apply to another FMID.
In:
Title: z/OS Packaging Rules
Document Number: SC
It's not clear what you are asking.
FMID for ++HOLD is used to select which HOLD records should be retained because
they are relevant to this system. If you have a hold for a function sysmod,
then FMID would match the function sysmod.
You say "NOT TO THE FMID It APPLIES". What are you talking a
From:
Title: SMP/E V3R6.0 for z/OS V1R13.0 Reference
Document Number: SA22-7772-16
When a dependent FUNCTION sysmod is held for error,
2.8 ++HOLD MCS
...
FMID
specifies the FMID to which the held SYSMOD is applicable. ...
Seems to say that the FMID operand should indicat
