ould
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 8:38 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: smp/e question - PTF relinks, but missing CSECTs.
> On May 25, 2018, at 12:39 PM, Jesse 1 Robinson
> wrote:
>
> I'm sympathetic to the argument that new stuff should be investigated, but
> the
> On May 25, 2018, at 12:39 PM, Jesse 1 Robinson
> wrote:
>
> I'm sympathetic to the argument that new stuff should be investigated, but
> the problem is whether that really happens in practice. We've all met the
> sysprog who meticulously codes parameter defaults as a kind of in-your-face
>
Behalf
Of Paul Gilmartin
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 11:03 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: smp/e question - PTF relinks, but missing CSECTs.
On Fri, 25 May 2018 17:39:03 +, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
>
>As for getting inconsistent results, I suspect that SMP/E resul
On Fri, 25 May 2018 17:39:03 +, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
>
>As for getting inconsistent results, I suspect that SMP/E results can be
>influenced by the particular mix of elements being processed in a given run.
>That is, applying SYSMOD-A and SYSMOD-B in the same step might uncover a
>sinkhol
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 12:43 PM Seymour J Metz wrote:
> My song "PUT Process" was motivated by real incidents. JES2 service was
> especially bad; they would issue a PTF with a packaging error and the fix
> would again have a packaging error.
>
Yeah, I remember "JES2 level sets". Unfortunately,
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 12:39 PM Jesse 1 Robinson
wrote:
> I'm sympathetic to the argument that new stuff should be investigated, but
> the problem is whether that really happens in practice. We've all met the
> sysprog who meticulously codes parameter defaults as a kind of in-your-face
> documen
From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Jesse 1 Robinson
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 1:39 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: smp/e question - PTF relinks, but missing CSECTs.
I'm sympathetic to the argument that new stuff should be investigated, but the
problem is whet
May 25, 2018 10:03 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: (External):Re: smp/e question - PTF relinks, but missing CSECTs.
(It's Friday; SPAM is above suspicion.)
On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:41:56 +, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
>I don't see any problem with the BYPASS statement exc
On Fri, 25 May 2018 11:19:58 -0500, Paul Gilmartin wrote:
>SYSLIB? SYSLMOD? Whatever. I don't believe SMP/E cares about SYSLIB
>DD statement images in Binder JCLIN.
It does with CALLLIBS.
--
Tom Marchant
--
For IBM-MAIN sub
(It's Friday; SPAM is above suspicion.)
On Fri, 25 May 2018 16:41:56 +, Jesse 1 Robinson wrote:
>I don't see any problem with the BYPASS statement except that it's needlessly
>specific. BYPASS(HOLDSYSTEM) without the list of types should not only
>suffice--it does for me--but also hedges ag
TED SPAM] smp/e question - PTF relinks, but
missing CSECTs.
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 10:41 AM Seymour J Metz wrote:
> What was on the APPLY statement?
>
It is my standard. The BYPASS _might_ be part of the problem, but I really
don't see why it would cause _this_ error.
: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
Paul Gilmartin <000433f07816-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2018 12:19 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: Re: [SUSPECTED SPAM] smp/e question - PTF relinks, but missing CSECTs.
On Fri, 25 May 2018 07:37:53 -0500,
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 10:41 AM Seymour J Metz wrote:
> What was on the APPLY statement?
>
It is my standard. The BYPASS _might_ be part of the problem, but I really
don't see why it would cause _this_ error.
SETBOUNDARY (MVST100)
.
APPLY
ASSEM
JCLI
On Fri, 25 May 2018 07:37:53 -0500, John McKown wrote:
>On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 7:26 AM Tom Marchant wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 May 2018 12:20:18 +, Allan Staller wrote:
>>
>> >Check the releted DDDEF's and the SYSLIB/CALLLIB concat.
>>
>> SYSLIB? The SYSLIB DDDEF is for assemblies, not for link e
/e question - PTF relinks, but missing CSECTs.
URL to a Github "gist" with the output that the Listserv rejected.
https://secure-web.cisco.com/1Gz91TSt9ItPQtPLAij5Im4PzjOnDpPoeJEyHyHuCN9yw-f50iRHiTJJySBmfW7ssRLowZzlUU8HGLElgFkDIpUqoWNAE-u9LDZPlIqiRDA_zSxLfIAHXoOhvn2mEN1RHmAxFwkPUT72wLlOrd
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 7:26 AM Tom Marchant <
000a2a8c2020-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2018 12:20:18 +, Allan Staller wrote:
>
> >Check the releted DDDEF's and the SYSLIB/CALLLIB concat.
>
> SYSLIB? The SYSLIB DDDEF is for assemblies, not for link edits.
>
Tru
On Fri, 25 May 2018 12:20:18 +, Allan Staller wrote:
>Check the releted DDDEF's and the SYSLIB/CALLLIB concat.
SYSLIB? The SYSLIB DDDEF is for assemblies, not for link edits.
--
Tom Marchant
--
For IBM-MAIN subscribe / sig
On Fri, May 25, 2018 at 7:21 AM Allan Staller wrote:
> Sounds like a SMP/E Configuration error. Check the releted DDDEF's and the
> SYSLIB/CALLLIB concat.
> Other SMP/E error messages?
>
That is the only error message. Not really an SMP/E error, just an
unacceptable RC from the Binder due to t
: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Fwd: [SUSPECTED SPAM] smp/e question - PTF relinks, but missing CSECTs.
Message below, with attached output, was reject by the Listserv because it had
too many lines (>1000)
-- Forwarded message -
From: John McKown
Date: Thu, May 24, 2018 at
On Thu, 24 May 2018 12:55:01 -0500, Tom Marchant wrote:
>
>>OK, y'all probably know that I'm on a very back level system -- z/OS 1.12
>>and we're even back level on maintenance. I'm trying to get more up to
>>date, mainly for "fun & profit". Anyway. There are a number of RACF modules
>>which were h
>
>
> From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List on behalf of
> John McKown
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 10:14 AM
> To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
> Subject: [SUSPECTED SPAM] smp/e question - PTF relinks, but missing CSECTs.
>
> O
URL to a Github "gist" with the output that the Listserv rejected.
https://gist.github.com/JohnArchieMckown/20d995cce8e2f201a4cf9725c4932092
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 3:30 PM Tom Marchant <
000a2a8c2020-dmarc-requ...@listserv.ua.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 May 2018 15:58:54 -0400, John Eells wrot
On Thu, 24 May 2018 15:58:54 -0400, John Eells wrote:
>Tom Marchant wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 May 2018 13:30:20 -0500, John McKown wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 12:40 PM Seymour J Metz wrote:
>>>
Have you looked at the MOD entries for the missing csects?
>>>
>>> Yes, they look correct to
Message below, with attached output, was reject by the Listserv because it
had too many lines (>1000)
-- Forwarded message -
From: John McKown
Date: Thu, May 24, 2018 at 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: [SUSPECTED SPAM] smp/e question - PTF relinks, but missing
CSECTs.
To: IBM Mainfr
Tom Marchant wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2018 13:30:20 -0500, John McKown wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 12:40 PM Seymour J Metz wrote:
Have you looked at the MOD entries for the missing csects?
Yes, they look correct to me. The entries for each MOD (missing & not
missing) points to AOSBN as wh
Of Tom Marchant
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 2:10 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: [SUSPECTED SPAM] smp/e question - PTF relinks, but missing CSECTs.
On Thu, 24 May 2018 13:35:06 -0500, John McKown wrote:
>I'm going to do a complete disk-level restore of the target system
&
On Thu, 24 May 2018 13:35:06 -0500, John McKown wrote:
>I'm going to do a complete disk-level restore of the target system
>(sandbox).
And the Global zone as well, I hope. Otherwise you will have a global
out of sync with the target zone.
>I had a number Sx37 abends which may be the main proble
On Thu, 24 May 2018 13:30:20 -0500, John McKown wrote:
>On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 12:40 PM Seymour J Metz wrote:
>
>> Have you looked at the MOD entries for the missing csects?
>
>Yes, they look correct to me. The entries for each MOD (missing & not
>missing) points to AOSBN as where it resides.
A MOD entry represents a member of a DLIB data set. Each DLIB data set
member may contain one or more sections, like CSECTs. (Those CSECTs
residing in a particular DLIB member might or might not be known to
SMP/E, depending on how the product was packaged. But SMP/E really acts
on the MODs.)
scussion List [mailto:IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU] On Behalf
Of John McKown
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 1:30 PM
To: IBM-MAIN@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Subject: Re: [SUSPECTED SPAM] smp/e question - PTF relinks, but missing CSECTs.
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 12:40 PM Seymour J Metz wrote:
> Did you do anythin
Thanks to all. After all this work, my boss has informed me that everything
I have done is unnecessary. I was looking at this to stage up to our
(hopefully) getting a z12BC and a new version of z/OS (probably the lowest
version which can still be ordered "to minimize changes"). Of course, a big
pro
On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 12:40 PM Seymour J Metz wrote:
> Did you do anything equivalent to NCAL?
>
No, but why would IBM do INCLUDE statements for some MODS but not others
in the same distribution library (AOSBN)?
>
> Have you looked at the MOD entries for the missing csects?
>
Yes, they
On Thu, 24 May 2018 09:14:20 -0500, John McKown wrote:
>OK, y'all probably know that I'm on a very back level system -- z/OS 1.12
>and we're even back level on maintenance. I'm trying to get more up to
>date, mainly for "fun & profit". Anyway. There are a number of RACF modules
>which were hit and
Discussion List on behalf of
John McKown
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 10:14 AM
To: IBM-MAIN@listserv.ua.edu
Subject: [SUSPECTED SPAM] smp/e question - PTF relinks, but missing CSECTs.
OK, y'all probably know that I'm on a very back level system -- z/OS 1.12
and we're even back level
OK, y'all probably know that I'm on a very back level system -- z/OS 1.12
and we're even back level on maintenance. I'm trying to get more up to
date, mainly for "fun & profit". Anyway. There are a number of RACF modules
which were hit and SMP/E tries to relink them. The problem seems to be that
so
35 matches
Mail list logo
