MS cannot answer it either...
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Todd Hemsell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Before deploying CM12 we converted all of our packages in SCCM 07 into
> applications. We decided to follow the application model 100%. Early
> on we discovered that if we deployed a newer version of an application
> in CM12 and superseded previous version(s) that CM12 would only
> upgrade the application on machines where it had installed the
> application because it did not "know about" the previous installs.
>
> We also noticed that the msi source update manager would not update
> the install sources for applications unless the application was
> deployed from CM12. CM12 would send down the product codes for all
> PACKAGES-PROGRAMS with a product code, but would only send the product
> code down on applications it had installed itself - because it did not
> "know about" the other installs.
>
>
>
> These 2 behaviors
>
> · Only upgrading superseded versions of apps if the previous
> version came from CM12
>
> · Only managing the source if the application came from CM12
>
> Led us to believe that the policy for superseded apps only got sent
> down to machines where the previous version came from CM12 and it
> "knew about" the install.
>
>
>
> As an example, we deployed an application called Ariel. Doing a query
> in CM12 we could see that the application was installed on over 650
> machines. Looking at the previous version in CM12 under the
> application statistics section we could see CM12 had deployed the
> application to roughly 100 machines.
>
> When we deployed Ariel the 100 systems where it was already installed
> automatically upgraded as they were supposed to, and the other 550 had
> to go to the application catalog and request the application.
>
> Additionally the 100 users would see the mandatory upgrade in the
> software center, and the other 500 users would only see the
> application in the application catalog.
>
>
>
> So to sum up from a policy perspective, If we deployed a superseded
> application to all users as available
>
> · CM12 would make that application available to all users in
> the application catalog
>
> · It would send policy about the application and superseded
> versions down to computer-user combinations that had a previous
> version installed FROM cm12
>
> · It would not send the policy down to all users or all systems
>
> · It would only update the source on systems where a user had
> requested the application
>
> · Only user that had a previous version installed form CM12
> would see a notification in the software center
>
>
>
> From a user perspective, If we deployed an application to all users as
> available
>
> · If they had a previous version AND it came from CM12 they
> would see a notification in the software center that a new application
> was available and ask them to upgrade it
>
> · If they had a previous version and it did NOT come from CM12
> they would NOT see a notification in the software center, they would
> instead have to go to the application catalog and request the newer
> version
>
> · If they did not have any version of the application they
> would not see anything in the software catalog
>
>
>
> We would also occasionally see CM12 upgrade an application where it
> had NOT deployed the previous version. This did not happen very often
> and I never saw a concrete example where I new for a fact the previous
> version did not come from CM12. I just wrote this off as one of the
> unexplained mysteries of SCCM that is really hard to nail down and not
> reproducible.
>
>
>
> Then we had some issues with one of our core applications, Adobe
> Reader. User were complaining that it was initiating self-healing and
> was unable to locate the install source. We decided to deploy it to
> all systems.
>
> Core applications are assigned to All Windows 7 Systems, User
> applications are deployed as available to All Users.
>
> In preparation for deploying it I sent out a simulated deployment to
> All systems. It turned out that the simulated deployment let CM12
> "know about" the install, and it began to update the install source.
>
>
>
> So I thought, if we do a simulated deployment for each application we
> deploy CM12 will send that out to all systems and then it will "know
> about" the installs and go ahead and upgrade all superseded versions.
>
>
>
> So to sum up the new expected behavior from a policy perspective, If
> we deployed an application to all users as available and send out a
> simulated deployment to all systems
>
> · CM12 would make that application available to all users in
> the application catalog
>
> · It would send policy about the application and superseded
> versions down to computer-user combinations that had a previous
> version installed FROM cm12
>
> · It would not send the deployment policy down to all users or
> all systems
>
> · It would discover other installations of the application
> because of the simulated deployment
>
> · It would then send down the deployment policy to the user or
> system so that the application gets upgraded
>
> · CM12 would begin managing the install source on that system
>
> · Users that had a previous version, regardless of where it
> came from, would get a notification in the software center that they
> needed to upgrade the applications
>
> · User that did not have a previous version would not see
> anything in the software center
>
>
>
> What we began seeing is CM12 making the application available in the
> application catalog, and ALSO in the software center, regardless of if
> they had the application installed or not. This is not consistent
> across applications or users. It appears to be 100% random.
>
>
>
> Question: What is the expected behavior?
>
>
>
>
