yes. One was already, and one is being reproduced and filed today
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:51 AM, Marcum, John <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's just plain silly. Is this classified as a bug????
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> On Behalf Of Todd Hemsell
> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 10:48 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [mssms] So basic Application question
>
> no.
>
> Bear in mind my deployments are to users optional as was intended.
> None of this applies if it is to system. Or some of it might apply, but I do
> not do deployments to systems except our 60 core apps.
> The other 1,100 apps are user optional via the software center
>
> So for user deployments the policy comes down to the users. So for the case
> of superseded apps SCCM only sends the policy down to a USER + COMPUTER
> combination that it knows has the application.
>
> Interestingly enough it actually does send all supersedance rules to all
> users, but those are discarded by the client and never processed.
> There is a different flag on the ones where it knows the user + computer has
> the app.
>
> Yes, incredibly complicated. This is the result of a 4 month case with MS. It
> is difficult to even explain to people.
>
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Marcum, John <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This part makes no sense to me. I'm not saying you are wrong but is this "by
>> design" because it sounds counter intuitive. " BUT only if CM12 deployed it
>> and "knows" it is installed." Shouldn't that be evaluated at run time and
>> not retrieved from some stored location? In other words if the product code
>> is present on the machine at run time it would be removed.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected]
>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Todd Hemsell
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 10:31 AM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [mssms] So basic Application question
>>
>> The question does not make sense to me.
>>
>> Options:
>>
>> Supersede an application:
>> This makes the older version no longer visible in the software center.
>> UNLESS you click the check box to make both version visible This will
>> make it to it removes the previous version before the new version
>>
>> When you do that without a deployment you have just removed the
>> application from the software center, nothing else
>>
>> Then you do a deployment. You can either select to upgrade previous versions
>> or not. If you select not to then when someone gets the app it will remove
>> the previous version If you select to do it then you can set a deadline.
>> With a deadline CM12 will actively upgrade previous versions, BUT only if
>> CM12 deployed it and "knows" it is installed.
>>
>> If you want to make sure it "knows about" all installed previous
>> version regardless of who or what installed it you need to do a
>> simulated deployment if the SUPERCEDED application to all SYSTEMS (not
>> users)
>>
>> If you do that make sure of the following:
>> The superseded version cannot have any dependencies The deployed version
>> cannot have and CHAINED dependencies.
>>
>> If either of the above 2 are true, it will force install on all systems
>> regardless of whether the previous version is installed or not.
>>
>> A bit complicated, read it a few times before asking questions :-)
>>
>> The bugs are filed or being reproduced and filed today.
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Matt Wilkinson <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I’m curious about this too. Do you delete the existing deployment for
>>> the old application or just leave it?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Gerlak, Matthew [mailto:[email protected]]
>>> Sent: 29 April 2014 21:47
>>> To: [email protected]
>>> Subject: RE: [mssms] So basic Application question
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> SO if I add a supersedence to my Office 2013 package to remove
>>> Office
>>> 2010 package and click the uninstall check box. I just want to make
>>> sure I still need a deployment for the upgraded to happen. I want to
>>> make sure I don’t upgrade everyone’s office overnight
>>>
>>> Like SMS or SCCM would do that. J
>>>
>>>
>>> _____________________________________________________________________
>>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System
>>> on behalf of Leeds College of Building.
>>> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
>>> _____________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _____________________________________________________________________
>>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System
>>> on behalf of Leeds College of Building.
>>> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
>>> _____________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is from a law firm and may be protected
>> by the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you have received this
>> message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and
>> then delete it from your computer.
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is from a law firm and may be protected
>> by the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you have received this
>> message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and
>> then delete it from your computer.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is from a law firm and may be protected
> by the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you have received this
> message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and
> then delete it from your computer.
>
> ________________________________
>
> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is from a law firm and may be protected
> by the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you have received this
> message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and
> then delete it from your computer.
>
