To me this thread has been mixing two different issues into one. One issue being passing the ANZOBJCNV command as run on a V5R4 system and the other is being ready to say their applications work on V6R1.
To pass the ANZOBJCNV test vendors could just compile the already tested, verified, production ready source code on V5R4 and make that version available to current V5R4 customers to install if they wish. Let those customers feel warm and fuzzy that their own systems can pass the ANZOBJCNV test. The same thing I have to do to whatever applications I have developed in-house to make the pass the ANZOBJCNV test.
The second part of being ready for V6R1 is making sure their applications work with all the other release changes IBM has put in V6R1, the same process as when any new release of the operating system has come out.
-----Original Message-----
From: midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:midrange-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of vhamberg@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 3:19 PM
To: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion
Subject: RE: Woes on ANZOBJCVN...
Rob
We've been through this point before. You are in a completely different milieux from vendors. You do not have to deal with people that will not update hardware, rather, you make sure you are at the vanguard. This is fantastic, but we still have to deal with other issues.
It is not wrong or even Ludditish of a vendor to say they support back to some level - it might even be a wise choice. And saying that, does not imply that the vendor is not also right on top of current OS levels. That comes out in the wash, as to what they really do.
So I have to disagree with the way you characterize some things vendors say - it just seems you have a grid of "latest only" through which everything is seen. Again, that works for you, and I deeply respect that. But we vendors do have a different audience than you have.
We also, as others have said, must actually run software on V6R1 in order to be sure things have not changed in APIs, etc. Things like the layout of the spooled file for DSPTAP that moved things in one release, things like requiring changes in the profile handle APIs at V5R1, IIRC. It is just not enough to run ANZOBJCVN and say we are all set. Most non-vendor shops probably don't use the stuff a lot of vendors use - I'm making assumptions here - so are not affected by those kinds of surprises. So they MIGHT be able to get away with just running ANZOBJCVN and take care of any fallout as it occurs.
JMHO
Vern - frantically trying to find time to get our 30 products certified and verified operationally!
-------------- Original message --------------
From: rob@xxxxxxxxx
And what really honks me off is the vendor proudly displays on their
website that they only support versions of the operating system currently
supported by IBM. Then compile brand new fixes down to V4R5 (not V5R4 or
3). My opinion is that if that is truly their support statement then they
shouldn't have a machine that can go that far back. And should even
research how to disable TGTRLS(V5R2M0) as an option in V5R4. Does simply
deleting this library, QSYSV5R2M0, do it?
Rob Berendt
--
This is the Midrange Systems Technical Discussion (MIDRANGE-L) mailing list
To post a message email: MIDRANGE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or change list options,
visit:
http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l
or email: MIDRANGE-L-request@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Before posting, please take a moment to review the archives
at
http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l.
midrange.com
