> Also, what benefit comes from changing IEBCOPY from AC(1) to AC(0)? HUGE benefit!
I am responsible for a vendor program that installs APF-authorized *solely* because it needs to call IEBCOPY. Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 10:35 AM To: [email protected] Subject: IEBCOPYO (was: APF-authorized ...) On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 10:52:18 -0500, Mike Schwab wrote: >http://www-01.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSLTBW_2.1.0/com.ibm.zos. >v2r1.e0zm100/dfpcopy.htm > >DFSMSdfp: Do not use IEBCOPYO > >Description: In z/OS V1R13, the IEBCOPY utility was enhanced, and one >of the enhancements was that the utility was no longer APF-authorized. >For users who needed to fallback from the new IEBCOPY to the previous >APF-authorized form, IEBCOPY was retained in z/OS V1R13 under the name >IEBCOPYO. The IEBDSCPY alias name for IEBCOPY was also revised to apply >to IEBCOPYO for z/OS V1R13. > When might such a need arise? I can't envision the circumstance. As long as the AC(0) IEBCOPY continues to reside in an APF library it can be invoked from an APF program. If a programmer compulsively checks the attributes of everything he LOADs, changing the name from IEBCOPY to IEBCOPYO breaks binary dusty-deck compatibility. Also, what benefit comes from changing IEBCOPY from AC(1) to AC(0)? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
