I'd like to see this too. I'd setup a WebEx if you want to present this to a couple of us.
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Todd Hemsell Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 5:41 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [mssms] So basic Application question Kim, Jason, and anyone else that is interested I would be glad to explain this in depth to you using visio diagrams and internal email threads, but only offline. I seem to be incapable of explaining this succinctly. I would be glad to explain to you so you guys could explain to others. I even have SQL queries you can run to find these issues in your database. if interested email me at todd-DOT-hemsell-AT-exterran-DOT-com /Todd On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Todd Hemsell <[email protected]> wrote: > So when a computer receives the policy for old app, and the the user > receives it for the new app, you don't have supersedence > > sure you do provided the superseded app is deployed simulate and not > mandatory OR if the detection rule on the older version says "this > version or greater" > In either case it will deploy the newer app, but if the older version > is mandatory, it will then remove the newer version and install the > older version (if the install supports it) It will go into a loop. > Seen that a few times. > > We strictly deploy applications to EITHER users OR computers, but > never the same app to both. > > If you deploy an app to a user and deploy the superseded version to > the system as simulated then the app will upgrade. > > All of the scenarios I am listing out I have verified by forcing M$ to > answer the question resulting in them going into the lab and > reproducing the behavior. Only after they reproduce it do I add it to > our polies and procedures. > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Kim Oppalfens <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'll try to explain what I know in the simplest way possible. >> (although that is hard) >> >> Supersedence in itself only kicks in when a resource receives a policy for >> both the old and the new app. >> (There's some exceptions here, that I'll leave out because I am >> trying the simple approach, but a user or computer needs to receive both.) >> So when a computer receives the policy for old app, and the the user >> receives it for the new app, you don't have supersedence. >> >> On the other hand, if you only receive the new app. Supersedence will >> uninstall the old app when detected. Even when not installed by cm. >> I think Todd is referring to the option of making a mandatory deployment to >> users that have the available app installed, which is yet another special >> case. >> >> Supersedence is actually a breeze, it gets complicated when you >> involve uninstalls :-) >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Marcum, John >> Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2014 5:51 PM >> To: '[email protected]' >> Subject: RE: [mssms] So basic Application question >> >> 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. >> >> > > > > ________________________________ 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.
