Take a look at your deployment types detection rules. When making the rule
try to make the rule so that if a newer version is installed the old version
is compliant. An example would be using the file version >= to the version
you are deploying. If you do that then when you install v2.0 over v1.0 and
still have v1.0 deployed v1.0 is still compliant since the version of the
file is 2.0 which is >= 1.0. 

 

---------------

Scott Keiffer

Senior Systems Administrator

Cockrell School of Engineering - IT Group

University of Texas at Austin

[email protected]

512-814-8872

 

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Ryan
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2013 11:01 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [mssms] Supersedence working as intended?

 

So we have Adobe Air 3.6 set up as an application and deployed to a
collection with all systems in it as required. We also have Adobe Air 3.7
set up as an application that supersedes and replaces 3.6, deployed as
required to our pilot collection. 

 

Adobe Air 3.7 installed correctly on systems in the pilot collection, but on
the next app eval cycle they downgraded to 3.6. These computers are still in
the 3.6 collection. Our understanding was if an application supersedes
another application, and both apps are deployed to that computer, the
superseded app would be skipped.

 

Is supersedence working as expected, or do we have a problem in our
environment? 

 

I know supersedence works when both apps are deployed to the same
collection, but it doesn't seem to work when they are deployed to different
collections which is how we wanted to use it. 

 

I realize it doesn't make much sense to have Air 3.6 still deployed to a
computer we want Air 3.7 on, and I've finally got my boss to agree so we are
setting up excludes now. The issue is they want assurances that if Air 3.6
and 3.7 are deployed to the same computer in different collections,
supersedence will make sure the newest version is always put on. I thought
that's how supersedence worked, but it looks like I'm wrong... maybe? 

 



Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Reply via email to