> On 02.03.2010 16:47, Vasaris wrote: > > put the wrong path. Does that means, that the client is left in the > > unsupported state, until is logged on by admin and fixed bad config by > > hand? Or special script has to be made, to re-deploy on-top? > > So how do you join a workstation to a domain (say, it's computer > password expired as it was off really long, you accidentally removed it > from AD, and so on), without either logging into it or starting a script > on it remotely? > > This is the same situation here.
No, I think, it is not. Computer removal from AD is "critical" event. Of course, someone can re-add to AD such computer by script, if he know local admin credentials and domain admin credentials. But is is unsecure, as the password will be exchanged in the plain-text via scripts. But in WPKG case, at least I have overlay, which is intact and working - GroupPolicy. I know, that Samba does not support this, and good programmer will always code the most general case. But it just do not hurt to add a few code lines for emergency/local re-parsing in case of emergency. Therefore, I can use at least 2 ways to deploy WPKG and its settings.xml - Software Installation (IntelliMirror), and Startup/Shutdown scripts. Therefore, I can push any changes I want, as long as the target system is able to parse these, either automatically, or by some sort of triger. We have already agreed below, that auto-parsing, or parsing by local triger is a wise solution, compared to any kind of workaround, like using psexec.exe wrapper to do remote tasks. This strategy just minimizes possible points-of-failure, nothing more, nothing less. > > Perhaps it would be wise to make a change, if wpkginst.exe finds > > settings.xml in its local directory, it updates registry lockers with this > > info every time it finds this file. It then can leave or delete it. It > > would be very simple to "push" changes to the service in case of usual or > > emergency reconfiguration, and would escape "unsupported" state once and > > for all. I think, that to "push" such file is much more simple, thant to > > execute remotelly with psexec (which is known to have version > > incompatibilieties by itself also!). > > Yep, could be useful indeed. should I post it as some kind of feature-request? Regards, Andrew. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- wpkg-users mailing list archives >> http://lists.wpkg.org/pipermail/wpkg-users/ _______________________________________________ wpkg-users mailing list wpkg-users@lists.wpkg.org http://lists.wpkg.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkg-users
