*This is 100% supported and not fixed. Notice the date, nearly a year. We cannot upgrade all of our applications using the app model as we should be able to do.*
*"Supported" is meaningless.* *If I have an app that costs 50k and I set it to require approval and it has a dependency on .Net framework... * *When I try to upgrade it the 50k app shows up on every system in the environment in the "software center" (not application catalog) as an app that needs to be installed.* *This causes a LOT of users to go ahead and install it thinking it is an update or otherwise legit deployment from IT.* *From:* support guy @microsoft.com <[email protected]>] *Sent:* Tuesday, April 22, 2014 9:31 AM *To:* Hemsell, Todd *Cc:* *Subject:* RE: Policy issue is SOLVED I was able to reproduce this issue in my SP1 and R2 Labs, by using the steps below. - Create AppA and deploy it to a user as Required and verify that AppA was installed. - Create AppB which depends on AppA. Deploy AppB as Available to a User Collection. AppB only shows up in App Catalog. - Create AppC which supersedes AppB. Deploy AppC as Available to a User Collection with option to upgrade Superseded Apps and deadline set to a future date. AppC shows up in Software Center even though AppB is not installed, only AppA was installed. I’ll submit this as a bug later today. Thanks, support guy On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Todd Hemsell <[email protected]> wrote: > Not a big deal is it? mine works just fine. > If it does not work for you, don't do it. > > "In this context, "not supported" means that if you reported problems with > the use of the ClientPatch folder directly - or problems as a result of its > use - we would not change the product code to resolve those. " > > Ok, so they will not change the code. But if your clients do not work you > still get support. The doom and gloom over "Supported" is way over hyped. I > doubt many people even know what it really means. It CERTAINLY does not > mean they will no longer help you resolve issues. PSS is a profit center > after all. > > Honestly, I have found at least 5 bugs int he content distribution systems > and several more in the application model. One of them lets users bypass > software approval requirements. THAT is 100% fully supported, and yet... NO > CODE CHANGES. > > So even when they "Support" it, they do not really support it. Completely > meaningless term, "Supported" > > On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Daniel Ratliff <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> The one known one is outlined in the article Jason linked to. >> >> >> >> >> http://blogs.technet.com/b/configmgrteam/archive/2009/04/08/automatically-applying-hotfixes-to-the-configuration-manager-2007-client-during-installation.aspx >> >> >> >> *The specific issue uncovered so far is that if certain command line >> properties <http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb680980.aspx> were >> specified (such as FSP or SMSSLP) they may not be honored when the patch is >> applied. There could be other issues that we are not aware of yet, but >> that one is apparent quickly if you are in that state.* >> >> >> >> *Daniel Ratliff* >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Todd Hemsell >> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 28, 2015 12:05 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [mssms] RE: Right-Click Client Install >> >> >> >> Correct. NOBODY can say what the "known side-effects" actually are. I >> have used that method for years and years and never had a single issue as a >> result. >> >> >> >> MS hardly supports the stuff they do support anyway. Not a whole lot of >> loss there IMHO. >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Daniel Ratliff <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Tons of details so Jason doesn’t have to re-explain in the post I sent >> before. >> >> >> >> >> https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/9e2d45c4-dd36-47d9-853e-4f94fc12ccd0/best-practise-for-installing-patches-for-sccm-client-2012-both-x86-and-x64-osd-and-client-push >> >> >> >> *Daniel Ratliff* >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Ewing, Scott L >> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 28, 2015 11:24 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* RE: [mssms] RE: Right-Click Client Install >> >> >> >> What are the known side-effects Jason? >> >> >> >> P.S. We use the CCMSETUP.EXE PATCH parameter to install the CU3 >> configmgr2012ac-r2-kb2994331-x64.msp. >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [ >> mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On >> Behalf Of *Jason Sandys >> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 28, 2015 10:19 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* RE: [mssms] RE: Right-Click Client Install >> >> >> >> Yep, just to reinforce, this is explicitly unsupported and there are >> known side-effects from doing this. Many folks do it successfully, but >> given that it’s explicitly unsupported, I would highly recommend you not do >> it this way. >> >> >> >> J >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [ >> mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On >> Behalf Of *Sean Pomeroy >> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 28, 2015 9:09 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [mssms] RE: Right-Click Client Install >> >> >> >> Just be aware that patching that way is unsupported by MS. Its a holdover >> from SMS2003 days. >> >> On Wed Jan 28 2015 at 10:02:31 AM Bradley, Matt <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Ok, I got this figured out and working. Like I said, updating our SCCM >> server falls under one of our admins duties. But as I got to digging, >> there appeared to be a CU msp path in the folder structure of my client >> install files. Inside the folder with ccmsetup.exe, there is the i386 and >> x64 folders. In each of those is a folder labeled ClientPatch, and within >> that, the msp update for the CU. For whatever reason, we had the current >> ccmsetup.exe version, but that ClientPatch folder had CU2. I replaced it >> with CU3 (configmgr2012ac-r2-kb2994331-x64.msp), redistributed the package, >> and now my right-click properly installs the current CU3 version. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to >> which it is addressed >> and may contain CONFIDENTIAL material. If you receive this >> material/information in error, >> please contact the sender and delete or destroy the material/information. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to >> which it is addressed >> and may contain CONFIDENTIAL material. If you receive this >> material/information in error, >> please contact the sender and delete or destroy the material/information. >> >> > >
