Hello, We have just published this technote that describes the policy for automatic deployment packages:
http://www.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21983614 Andy ____________________________________________________________________________ Andrew Raibeck | IBM Spectrum Protect Level 3 | [email protected] IBM Tivoli Storage Manager links: Product support: https://www.ibm.com/support/entry/portal/product/tivoli/tivoli_storage_manager Online documentation: http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSGSG7/landing/welcome_ssgsg7.html Product Wiki: https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/wikis/home/wiki/Tivoli%20Storage%20Manager "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[email protected]> wrote on 2016-05-17 11:36:43: > From: Bjoern Rackoll <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Date: 2016-05-17 11:37 > Subject: Re: Reg: tsm ba client autodeploy package 7.1.4.1 > Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <[email protected]> > > Hi Neil, hi all (especially TSM dev), > > I got a similar statement today from IBM support. > > There is no official communication for that, but support says that one > reason is that they intend to publish client fixpacks about every three > months in the future. > > So first, why is there no official statement? > > Second, why isn't the release schedule changed first and then ceased to > publish autodeployment packages for interim fixes? > > And third, as Neil already said, why aren't customers allowed to > continue to deploy interim fixes if that is necessary? > > @IBM: PMR number can be provided upon request. > > Regards, > > Bjoern > > > > Srikanth > > > > I complained about the very same thing last month: > > https://adsm.org/lists/html/ADSM-L/2016-03/msg00008.html > > > > I've since discovered that IBM have indeed made the decision to no > longer supply exported packages for interim fixes. If you're using > auto-deployment then you need to find another mechanism for pushing > out interim fixes because it now only works for fix packs. (But then > if you've got such a mechanism, why bother with TSM auto-deployment > in the first place?) > > > > I've not given up hope that IBM will see how perverse this > approach is and reverse its decision. The current client fix pack > (7.1.4) was released in November and was followed by a flash in > February which described how data loss could occur and recommended > 7.1.4.1 be installed on vulnerable systems. How exactly did they > think large shops were supposed to push that update out to affected > systems? Maybe customers should wait for the 7.1.5 client? No, hang > on - they skipped that one so we're currently waiting on 7.1.6 with > its associated .EXP files. > > > > I agree that there are good reasons why customers should think > carefully before auto-deploying interim fixes. For what it's worth I > think IBM should tell them the reasons, publish the exported > packages anyway and give them the *choice* of being able to perform > tightly targeted deployments where there is a requirement to do so. > > > > Regards > > Neil > > > > > > > > Neil Schofield > > Tivoli Storage Manager SME > > Backup & Recovery | Storage & Middleware | Central Infrastructure > Services | Infrastructure & Service Delivery | Group IT > > LLOYDS BANKING GROUP > > > > -- > Björn Rackoll > Universität Hamburg > Regionales Rechenzentrum > Zentrale Dienste > Schlüterstr. 70 > 20146 Hamburg > Tel.: +49 (0)40 42838 - 63 11 > Fax: +49 (0)40 42838 - 62 70 > Mobil: +49 (0)172 427 0301 > E-Mail: [email protected] >
