开云体育

CP Query

Dave Wade All Messages By This Member #186 开云体育 Folks ? I don’t suppose that any one can help me. I want to stop calling the Six-Pack builds “beta” and just number them say 1.3.1, 1.3.2, etc. Any way I can fix most things but I can’t figure out how to get the “query cplevel” to return an extra digit. Any thoughts any one? ? Dave Wade G4UGM & EA7KAE ?
Peter Coghlan All Messages By This Member #187 Hi Dave, I don't suppose that any one can help me. I want to stop calling the Six-Pack builds "beta" and just number them say 1.3.1, 1.3.2, etc. Any way I can fix most things but I can't figure out how to get the "query cplevel" to return an extra digit. Any thoughts any one? From a quick look around, it seems like "query cplevel" was added by CP mod HRC019DK and it's output modified by HRC100DK and HRC200DK. There is a QCPBLOK COPY added to DMKHRC MACLIB which may be pertinent. Regards, Peter Coghlan.
[email protected] All Messages By This Member #188 开云体育 Hi Dave, If you leave out the last dot it would be a proper decimal number, as a Rexx person I see the advantages of that ;-) best regards, 搁别苍é. toggle quoted message Show quoted text On 29 Jan 2020, at 11:38, Dave Wade <dave.g4ugm@...> wrote: Folks ? I don’t suppose that any one can help me. I want to stop calling the Six-Pack builds “beta” and just number them say 1.3.1, 1.3.2, etc. Any way I can fix most things but I can’t figure out how to get the “query cplevel” to return an extra digit. Any thoughts any one? ? Dave Wade G4UGM & EA7KAE ?
Peter Coghlan All Messages By This Member #191 I wrote: I don't suppose that any one can help me. I want to stop calling the Six-Pack builds "beta" and just number them say 1.3.1, 1.3.2, etc. Any way I can fix most things but I can't figure out how to get the "query cplevel" to return an extra digit. Any thoughts any one? From a quick look around, it seems like "query cplevel" was added by CP mod HRC019DK and it's output modified by HRC100DK and HRC200DK. There is a QCPBLOK COPY added to DMKHRC MACLIB which may be pertinent. I failed to notice the abomination that is HRC370DK :-( If you want to continue with the same sort of awfulness, I think you need something like this mod to DMKCPI: ./ R 02143300 $ 02143310 CPIWHO DC C'x.x.x: ' ./ R 02287200 $ 02287210 MVC CPIWHO(5),12(R1) and this mod to DMKCPE: ./ R 00011060 $ 00011061 DC CL5'1.3.2' "sixpack" version number However, I have to question if QUERY CPLEVEL is the right place to put this information seeing as a Sixpack distribution is really composed of a certain level of CP features, a certain level of CMS features and a bunch of compilers and applications while QUERY CPLEVEL only describes one aspect of this. Regards, Peter Coghlan.
Dave Wade All Messages By This Member #209 Peter, Thanks I don't especially want to continue, but I don't want to write more code. I saw that code and wondered what to tweak. Dave. p.s. As for "is this the right place" well not sure, but I don't want to write more code. Note its perfectly possible to run mis-matched CP and CMS. I don't think there are any thing in older CPs that break newer CMS and visa versa. So the levels are returned via the separate commands. It still works that way. Previously it was reasonable common practice to update CMS and then CP... toggle quoted message Show quoted text -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Peter Coghlan Sent: 29 January 2020 12:00 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [h390-vm] CP Query I wrote: I don't suppose that any one can help me. I want to stop calling the Six-Pack builds "beta" and just number them say 1.3.1, 1.3.2, etc. Any way I can fix most things but I can't figure out how to get the "query cplevel" to return an extra digit. Any thoughts any one? From a quick look around, it seems like "query cplevel" was added by CP mod HRC019DK and it's output modified by HRC100DK and HRC200DK. There is a QCPBLOK COPY added to DMKHRC MACLIB which may be pertinent. I failed to notice the abomination that is HRC370DK :-( If you want to continue with the same sort of awfulness, I think you need something like this mod to DMKCPI: ./ R 02143300 $ 02143310 CPIWHO DC C'x.x.x: ' ./ R 02287200 $ 02287210 MVC CPIWHO(5),12(R1) and this mod to DMKCPE: ./ R 00011060 $ 00011061 DC CL5'1.3.2' "sixpack" version number However, I have to question if QUERY CPLEVEL is the right place to put this information seeing as a Sixpack distribution is really composed of a certain level of CP features, a certain level of CMS features and a bunch of compilers and applications while QUERY CPLEVEL only describes one aspect of this. Regards, Peter Coghlan.
Drew Derbyshire All Messages By This Member #210 On 1/29/20 3:59 AM, Peter Coghlan wrote: However, I have to question if QUERY CPLEVEL is the right place to put this information seeing as a Sixpack distribution is really composed of a certain level of CP features, a certain level of CMS features and a bunch of compilers and applications while QUERY CPLEVEL only describes one aspect of this. Since the SixPakc include CP changes, it's definitively of? one the right places. Both CP and CMS should be report what their build level and their build date; so should the other components. Why would one omit the information from CP Q CPLEVEL just because it can't report X Y or Z which are not part of CP?
adriansutherland67 All Messages By This Member #216 On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 07:41 PM, Drew Derbyshire wrote: Both CP and CMS should be report what their build level and their build date Indeed, and I was just wondering how to report CMSLIB version, and of course GCC brexx etc all have versions. As for the distribution ... why not just have a version in a file on a shared drive and report it in a welcome message via a shared profile exec ... Something easy ...
Dave Wade All Messages By This Member #217 开云体育 Share file, didn’t want to undo existing stuff ? Dave ? toggle quoted message Show quoted text From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of adriansutherland67 Sent: 29 January 2020 22:33 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [h390-vm] CP Query ? On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 07:41 PM, Drew Derbyshire wrote: Both CP and CMS should be report what their build level and their build date Indeed, and I was just wondering how to report CMSLIB version, and of course GCC brexx etc all have versions. As for the distribution ... why not just have a version in a file on a shared drive and report it in a welcome message via a shared profile exec ... Something easy ...
Doug Wegscheid All Messages By This Member #219 I would ask why shouldn't X Y and Z report their own level, and not have to fold that into CP? On Wednesday, January 29, 2020, 2:41:40 PM EST, Drew Derbyshire <swhobbit@...> wrote: On 1/29/20 3:59 AM, Peter Coghlan wrote: > > However, I have to question if QUERY CPLEVEL is the right place to put this > information seeing as a Sixpack distribution is really composed of a certain > level of CP features, a certain level of CMS features and a bunch of compilers > and applications while QUERY CPLEVEL only describes one aspect of this. > Since the SixPakc include CP changes, it's definitively of? one the right places. Both CP and CMS should be report what their build level and their build date; so should the other components. Why would one omit the information from CP Q CPLEVEL just because it can't report X Y or Z which are not part of CP?
Drew Derbyshire All Messages By This Member #221 开云体育 On 1/29/20 7:22 PM, Doug Wegscheid wrote: I would ask why shouldn't X Y and Z report their own level, and not have to fold that into CP? Have both.

Previous Topic Next Topic