Server 2003 SP2 versions. Jan 6/1/2007 11:45:01 AM Dear reader, First of all, I have to congratulate you with this very nice product. Way better then the 2.0 version. Very nice. However, I encounter a problem with the logic. I simply do not understand following: KB 914961, the 3 SP2 for Server 2003 (with 3 versions of processor types) release day 22-05-2007 are all marked with comment: “There is a newer revision of this update available” However, there is no such a newer version, at least not in my database. That is an error? I automatically approve all updates (to keep things simple). I also checked the checkboxes on the advanced tab of the automatic approval feature. So I would expect that the update (SP) would be declined, but it is not. It is marked “install”. This is confusing. What is the logic? Is there a problem with this service pack? Is the (newer) version somewhere hidden to be approved (for licence reason)? Please assist, -- Jan

Re: Server 2003 SP2 versions. "Lawrence Garvin \(MVP\)" <onsitech[ at ]community.nospam> 6/1/2007 4:55:50 PM "Jan" <Jan[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:47375BAF-98FB-4344-970A-F6955DDB4326[ at ]microsoft.com... [Quoted Text] > However, I encounter a problem with the logic. I simply do not understand > following: > > KB 914961, the 3 SP2 for Server 2003 (with 3 versions of processor types) > release day 22-05-2007 are all marked with comment: "There is a newer > revision of this update available" If the phrase "There is a newer revision of this update available" exists on your server, that means the server has already synchronized and retrieved the "newer revision" of that update, and it does, in fact, already exist on your server. > However, there is no such a newer version, at least not in my database. > That is an error? No error... just, perhaps, a challenge in identifying where that revision is displayed. > I automatically approve all updates (to keep things simple). > I also checked the checkboxes on the advanced tab of the automatic > approval > feature. Okay... so if these updates (SP2) were already approved, and you've enabled all of the auto-approval options (including the option to auto-approve newer revisions), then the newest revision is now available for detection/download, the older revisions are "expired", and you're good to go. > So I would expect that the update (SP) would be declined, but it is not. > It > is marked "install". That's because a *revision* is not a new update, it's a new packaging of the same update. So, previously marked as "Install", combined with "auto-approve all revision", means the new revision will continue to be marked "Install". > Is the (newer) version somewhere hidden to be approved (for licence > reason)? On the update details pane.... look for the "Revisions" tab. -- Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCTS, MCP Independent WSUS Evangelist MVP-Software Distribution (2005-2007) https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile=30E00990-8F1D-4774-BD62-D095EB07B36E Everything you need for WSUS is at http://technet2.microsoft.com/windowsserver/en/technologies/featured/wsus/default.mspx And, almost everything else is at http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com .....

Re: Server 2003 SP2 versions. Jan 6/2/2007 7:29:00 AM Lawrence, Thanks for your answer. Now it is clear to me. However, I think this will be confusing for many users. Reason: these cases happen seldom (only when the licence agreement has to be approved). It would be (maybe) better to add that in the text with in the details pane below. Something like !!! YOU NEED TO APPROVE LICENCE AGREEMENT !!! -- Jan "Lawrence Garvin (MVP)" wrote: [Quoted Text] > "Jan" <Jan[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:47375BAF-98FB-4344-970A-F6955DDB4326[ at ]microsoft.com... > > > However, I encounter a problem with the logic. I simply do not understand > > following: > > > > KB 914961, the 3 SP2 for Server 2003 (with 3 versions of processor types) > > release day 22-05-2007 are all marked with comment: "There is a newer > > revision of this update available" > > If the phrase "There is a newer revision of this update available" exists on > your server, that means the server has already synchronized and retrieved > the "newer revision" of that update, and it does, in fact, already exist on > your server. > > > However, there is no such a newer version, at least not in my database. > > That is an error? > > No error... just, perhaps, a challenge in identifying where that revision is > displayed. > > > I automatically approve all updates (to keep things simple). > > I also checked the checkboxes on the advanced tab of the automatic > > approval > > feature. > > Okay... so if these updates (SP2) were already approved, and you've enabled > all of the auto-approval options (including the option to auto-approve newer > revisions), then the newest revision is now available for > detection/download, the older revisions are "expired", and you're good to > go. > > > So I would expect that the update (SP) would be declined, but it is not. > > It > > is marked "install". > > That's because a *revision* is not a new update, it's a new packaging of the > same update. So, previously marked as "Install", combined with "auto-approve > all revision", means the new revision will continue to be marked "Install". > > > Is the (newer) version somewhere hidden to be approved (for licence > > reason)? > > On the update details pane.... look for the "Revisions" tab. > > -- > Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCTS, MCP > Independent WSUS Evangelist > MVP-Software Distribution (2005-2007) > https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile=30E00990-8F1D-4774-BD62-D095EB07B36E > > Everything you need for WSUS is at > http://technet2.microsoft.com/windowsserver/en/technologies/featured/wsus/default.mspx > > And, almost everything else is at > http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com > ..... > > >

Re: Server 2003 SP2 versions. "Lawrence Garvin \(MVP\)" <onsitech[ at ]community.nospam> 6/2/2007 10:07:24 PM "Jan" <Jan[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:C8372390-0440-4AC7-8A43-82C6172FF8A3[ at ]microsoft.com... [Quoted Text] > Now it is clear to me. > However, I think this will be confusing for many users. It has been.. on occasion. :-) > Reason: these cases happen seldom (only when the licence agreement has to > be > approved). Actually *revisions* happen almost every month. You've just only seen your first. :-) > Something like !!! YOU NEED TO APPROVE LICENCE AGREEMENT !!! If you need to approve a EULA, you'll be prompted via popup to approve the EULA at the time you approve the update. A *revision* does not require the approval of a EULA if the update has already been approved, because the EULA will not change in a *revision*. -- Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCTS, MCP Independent WSUS Evangelist MVP-Software Distribution (2005-2007) https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile=30E00990-8F1D-4774-BD62-D095EB07B36E Everything you need for WSUS is at http://technet2.microsoft.com/windowsserver/en/technologies/featured/wsus/default.mspx And, almost everything else is at http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com .....

Re: Server 2003 SP2 versions. Jan 6/4/2007 6:19:02 AM Laurence, Hmmm… “Actually *revisions* happen almost every month. You've just only seen your first. :-) ” Actually I work already 2(?) years with WSUS 2 and had never such “points of attention”. Apparently such revisions were automatically approved (or I set it that way). Now I have to “do” something. In fact now (3.0) it is the correct way of working; in past I did not bother about it. “If you need to approve a EULA, you'll be prompted via popup to approve the EULA at the time you approve the update. A *revision* does not require the approval of a EULA if the update has already been approved, because the EULA will not change in a *revision*.” When closely examining this particular “revision” I see following mentioned as reason for the “revision”: “The update's Microsoft Software License Terms have changed. The set of updates superseded by this update has changed.” In addition, I found that this revision was released as KB 904961 on 3.0 (22-05-2007) and as KB 931836 in WSUS 2.0 In 2.0 it is an *update rollup* without referring to *revisions* whatsoever. I think we can conclude that between 2.0 and 3.0 things changed. Or am I wrong? I have some other questions (regarding clients), but I post those in another node. -- Jan "Lawrence Garvin (MVP)" wrote: [Quoted Text] > > "Jan" <Jan[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:C8372390-0440-4AC7-8A43-82C6172FF8A3[ at ]microsoft.com... > > > Now it is clear to me. > > However, I think this will be confusing for many users. > > It has been.. on occasion. :-) > > > Reason: these cases happen seldom (only when the licence agreement has to > > be > > approved). > > Actually *revisions* happen almost every month. You've just only seen your > first. :-) > > > Something like !!! YOU NEED TO APPROVE LICENCE AGREEMENT !!! > > If you need to approve a EULA, you'll be prompted via popup to approve the > EULA at the time you approve the update. A *revision* does not require the > approval of a EULA if the update has already been approved, because the EULA > will not change in a *revision*. > > > -- > Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCTS, MCP > Independent WSUS Evangelist > MVP-Software Distribution (2005-2007) > https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile=30E00990-8F1D-4774-BD62-D095EB07B36E > > Everything you need for WSUS is at > http://technet2.microsoft.com/windowsserver/en/technologies/featured/wsus/default.mspx > > And, almost everything else is at > http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com > ..... > > >

Re: Server 2003 SP2 versions. "Lawrence Garvin \(MVP\)" <onsitech[ at ]community.nospam> 6/4/2007 12:33:41 PM "Jan" <Jan[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:DF7CABB6-3FD4-4F14-87B7-A30D6ADA44DD[ at ]microsoft.com... [Quoted Text] > "Actually *revisions* happen almost every month. You've just only seen > your > first. :-)" > Actually I work already 2(?) years with WSUS 2 and had never such "points > of > attention". > Apparently such revisions were automatically approved (or I set it that > way). That could be an indication of how transparent they've been, if you have auto-approve all revisions enabled. But, it's simple to see the facts. Scroll through the list of updates, with the revisions tab active. Everytime you see a revision number greater than 100 (e.g. 101, 102, 103), that's a *revision* that slipped under your radar. > Now I have to "do" something. > In fact now (3.0) it is the correct way of working; in past I did not > bother > about it. As far as I know, this is still a configurable *option*. You can either manually approve the revisions, or you can auto-approve the revisions. If you manually approve the revisions, the release of a revision will cause the older revision(s) to be expired, and will cease updating your clients until you approve the revision. This will, no doubt, increase your workload. Since a revision does not involve a change in content, it seems to me that auto-approving the revisions is the easier option. > "If you need to approve a EULA, you'll be prompted via popup to approve > the > EULA at the time you approve the update. A *revision* does not require the > approval of a EULA if the update has already been approved, because the > EULA > will not change in a *revision*." > > When closely examining this particular "revision" I see following > mentioned > as reason for the "revision": > > "The update's Microsoft Software License Terms have changed. > The set of updates superseded by this update has changed." > In addition, I found that this revision was released as KB 904961 on 3.0 > (22-05-2007) and as KB 931836 in WSUS 2.0 > In 2.0 it is an *update rollup* without referring to *revisions* > whatsoever. This is not a *revision*. This is a *NEW* package, and is somewhat unique unto itself. It was completely repackaged, including applicabilities, in the newer version. In this particular instance, the auto-approval rule does *not* apply. > I think we can conclude that between 2.0 and 3.0 things changed. I think *that* conclusion is obvious. Of course things changed! To expect all behaviors to be identical between one version and the next is to expect there to be no improvements or repairs. -- Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCTS, MCP Independent WSUS Evangelist MVP-Software Distribution (2005-2007) https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile=30E00990-8F1D-4774-BD62-D095EB07B36E Everything you need for WSUS is at http://technet2.microsoft.com/windowsserver/en/technologies/featured/wsus/default.mspx And, almost everything else is at http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com .....

Re: Server 2003 SP2 versions. Jan 6/4/2007 2:16:05 PM Laurence, As you mention: "Of course things changed: and as I may conclude, for the better. Clear now. Thank you, for answering my (these) questions. -- Jan "Lawrence Garvin (MVP)" wrote: [Quoted Text] > "Jan" <Jan[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message > news:DF7CABB6-3FD4-4F14-87B7-A30D6ADA44DD[ at ]microsoft.com... > > > "Actually *revisions* happen almost every month. You've just only seen > > your > > first. :-)" > > > Actually I work already 2(?) years with WSUS 2 and had never such "points > > of > > attention". > > Apparently such revisions were automatically approved (or I set it that > > way). > > That could be an indication of how transparent they've been, if you have > auto-approve all revisions enabled. > > But, it's simple to see the facts. Scroll through the list of updates, with > the revisions tab active. Everytime you see a revision number greater than > 100 (e.g. 101, 102, 103), that's a *revision* that slipped under your radar. > > > Now I have to "do" something. > > In fact now (3.0) it is the correct way of working; in past I did not > > bother > > about it. > > > As far as I know, this is still a configurable *option*. You can either > manually approve the revisions, or you can auto-approve the revisions. If > you manually approve the revisions, the release of a revision will cause the > older revision(s) to be expired, and will cease updating your clients until > you approve the revision. This will, no doubt, increase your workload. Since > a revision does not involve a change in content, it seems to me that > auto-approving the revisions is the easier option. > > > "If you need to approve a EULA, you'll be prompted via popup to approve > > the > > EULA at the time you approve the update. A *revision* does not require the > > approval of a EULA if the update has already been approved, because the > > EULA > > will not change in a *revision*." > > > > When closely examining this particular "revision" I see following > > mentioned > > as reason for the "revision": > > > > "The update's Microsoft Software License Terms have changed. > > The set of updates superseded by this update has changed." > > > In addition, I found that this revision was released as KB 904961 on 3.0 > > (22-05-2007) and as KB 931836 in WSUS 2.0 > > In 2.0 it is an *update rollup* without referring to *revisions* > > whatsoever. > > > This is not a *revision*. This is a *NEW* package, and is somewhat unique > unto itself. It was completely repackaged, including applicabilities, in the > newer version. In this particular instance, the auto-approval rule does > *not* apply. > > > > I think we can conclude that between 2.0 and 3.0 things changed. > > I think *that* conclusion is obvious. Of course things changed! To expect > all behaviors to be identical between one version and the next is to expect > there to be no improvements or repairs. > > -- > Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCTS, MCP > Independent WSUS Evangelist > MVP-Software Distribution (2005-2007) > https://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile=30E00990-8F1D-4774-BD62-D095EB07B36E > > Everything you need for WSUS is at > http://technet2.microsoft.com/windowsserver/en/technologies/featured/wsus/default.mspx > > And, almost everything else is at > http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com > ..... > > > >