Hi all,
YAOEfJC = Yet Another Obvious Example for Jon Cohen :)
I've been encountering "BAD VARIABLE BLOCK STRUCTURE" on spool files recently...
so I thought I'd search HP ESC looking for info (silly me!).
(Don't worry, I'm not ranting (today, anyway) over the fact that I checked
"MPE", but only 8 of the 60 "hits" displayed were MPE oriented, with the
rest being HP-UX oriented.)
I found the following bug report:
Title : C.04.02. 3 $stdlist spoolfiles have 'bad variable block structure'
Date : 970830
Type : SR
Document ID : 4701316554
Signed Off :
System/Model :
Product Name : MPE/IX
Product Version : 31900C.05.07
Release : 55PT
*** FIX TEXT ***
Submitted to version C.13.02.
Ok...I guess it hasn't been "signed off", because that field is blank...
should I care? Who knows!
Well, how about the version info? I'm currently running 5.5 (at least,
that's what the users call it) ... or is it:
RELEASE: C.55.01 MPE/iX HP31900 C.05.08 USER VERSION: C.55.01
Well...what I'm running doesn't seem to correlate with *ANY* of the "versions"
in the SR!
The SR mentions:
C.04.02. 3 (in the "Title")
... nope, no match ... and no obvious relationship to 5.5
31900C.05.07 (the "Product Version")
... nope, no match ... but some vague similarity to the middle
value in the SHOWME line ... except mine's C.05.08, not C.05.07.
Does that mean my version already has the fix, since it's a
bigger number? Or is the "05.07" the version of MPE in which
the problem was confirmed?
55PT (the "Release")
... nope, no match ... BTW, since when does HP get even
remotely close to using a version number like the one the
users use? :)
(I've *never* heard or seen the phrase "55PT" before. The closest
I can remember is either V/P or PT-109)
C.13.02 (the "Submitted to version")
... nope, no match ... what a relief to know it's been fixed.
Uh...is that in 5.6, 5.7, 6.0, 6.1, 7.0, 12.3, or 57PTboat?
So...is it any wonder people complain about the version numbering?
--
Stan Sieler [log in to unmask]
http://www.allegro.com/sieler.html
|
