I've been watching this exchange from a distance. Are we now confusing 2 issues here? We have the original problem of CEEPLPKA and the secondary one of his running apply jobs bypassing holderrors without knowing what he was bypassing.
The OP has gotten an apply check to run with RC=0 after removing the BYPASS(HOLDERROR) by eliminating the PTFs that were held by the error. This doesn't do anything about the original problem of the apply returning RC=4 on CEEPLPKA on the actual apply. Unless the OP eliminated additional PTFs from the apply (one at least of which would need to be installing a fix into CEEPLPKA), he will still have the issue with language environment. Unless I missed a part of the conversation, I believe he still needs to find out how to get the load module flags set correctly. Rex -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gibney, Dave Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 11:28 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: RSU APPLY ISSUE GIM23911E This is exactly how you resolve this issue. Don't deliberately put broken software on your system. > -----Original Message----- > From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Mainframe Mainframe > Sent: Friday, September 05, 2014 7:28 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: RSU APPLY ISSUE GIM23911E > > Thanks all for reply. Now to resolve this issue, I tried running below > more steps. > > 1) I run APPLY CHECK Job without HOLDERROR included in it. Job failed > with RC 08 > > GIM69168E ** HFSCOPY PROCESSING TO THE SIZUFSC LIBRARY FAILED FOR HFS > IZUGNAAC > IN SYSMOD UI16044. THE RETURN CODE (12) EXCEEDED THE > ALLOWABLE > VALUE. DATE 14.247 - TIME 23:39:39 - SEQUENCE NUMBER > 000025. > GIM30216I APPLY PROCESSING FAILED FOR SYSMOD UI16044. SYSTEM UTILITY > PROCESSING FAILED FOR AN ELEMENT IN UI16044. > GIM30219E ** APPLY PROCESSING FAILED FOR SYSMOD UI18572. PROCESSING > FAILED FOR > SYSMOD UI16044, WHICH WAS SPECIFIED ON THE ++VER PRE > OPERAND. > GIM30221E ** APPLY PROCESSING FAILED FOR SYSMOD UI16025. PROCESSING > FAILED FOR > SYSMOD UI16044, WHICH WAS SPECIFIED ON THE ++VER REQ > OPERAND. > GIM30221E ** APPLY PROCESSING FAILED FOR SYSMOD UI16026. PROCESSING > FAILED FOR > SYSMOD UI16044, WHICH WAS SPECIFIED ON THE ++VER REQ > OPERAND. > GIM30221E ** APPLY PROCESSING FAILED FOR SYSMOD UI16027. PROCESSING > FAILED FOR > SYSMOD UI16044, WHICH WAS SPECIFIED ON THE ++VER REQ > OPERAND. > GIM30221E ** APPLY PROCESSING FAILED FOR SYSMOD UI16028. PROCESSING > FAILED FOR > SYSMOD UI16044, WHICH WAS SPECIFIED ON THE ++VER REQ > OPERAND. > GIM30221E ** APPLY PROCESSING FAILED FOR SYSMOD UI16029. PROCESSING > FAILED FOR > SYSMOD UI16044, WHICH WAS SPECIFIED ON THE ++VER REQ > OPERAND. > GIM30221E ** APPLY PROCESSING FAILED FOR SYSMOD UI16030. PROCESSING > FAILED FOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > . . . . . > . . > Then I tried looking at UI16044 PTF in SMPPTS and this is basically for > z/OSMF and we are not using this product.So, I tried EXCLUDING and run > Job again. This time it failed with > > GIM30204E ** APPLY PROCESSING FAILED FOR SYSMOD UI18572. REQUIRED > SYSMODS WERE > EXCLUDED. > GIM35905I PREREQUISITE SYSMOD UI16044 WAS EXCLUDED. > > And UI18572 also belongs to z/OS MF. So, I EXCLUDED this as well from > APLLY CHeck Job and run with RC00. > > Is it good way to bypass the issue, I am facing or Do I have to solve > it now before moving forward. > > Suggestion Please. > > > On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Tom Marchant < 0000000a2a8c2020-dmarc- > [email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, 5 Sep 2014 06:56:17 -0700, Lizette Koehler wrote: > > > > >Do not change the CEEPLPKA. IBM sets that and probably requires it > to > > >be > > a 0 max cc. > > > > > >So, try the apply without the BYPASS HOLDERROR and see if it works. > > > > We don't know the state of his system. Those APARs are likely not for > > LE, but for some other component. His APPLY failed, but we don't know > > what was done when he ran the APPLY with BYPASS (HOLDERROR). The > > PTF(S) with the error holds may or may not have been applied. > > > > At this point, I wouldn't trust his system. > > > > -- > > Tom Marchant > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send > > email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send > email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN The information contained in this message is confidential, protected from disclosure and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, distribution, copying, or any action taken or action omitted in reliance on it, is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this message and destroy the material in its entirety, whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
