|
|
I'm using WSUS version 3.0.6000.374 on Windows Server 2003 R2 with SP2.
I just noticed that there are 2 newer revisions for Windows XP Service Pack
3. The revision history shows 3 different versions as follows:
Windows XP SP3 (KB936929) Revision 108 (10/28/2008)
Windows XP SP3 (KB936929) Revision 105 (7/8/2008)
Windows XP SP3 (KB936929) Revision 104 (5/27/2008)
Revision 104 is the original release.
Rev 105 says "The applicability rules or prerequisites have changed".
Rev 108 says the same thing as rev 105 with additional info: "The set of
updates superseded by this update has changed."
I've approved Revision 104 for installation since June 2008. I'm wondering
if it's a good idea to change approval status on revision 104 to NOT
Approved. Then change Revision 108 status to Install.
In general, is it a good idea to do change approval status of older
revisions to NOT Approved and pick the latest revision instead?
|
|
"John" <a> wrote in message news:OZ%23zaPeOJHA.4760[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > I'm using WSUS version 3.0.6000.374 on Windows Server 2003 R2 with SP2.
>
> I just noticed that there are 2 newer revisions for Windows XP Service
> Pack 3. The revision history shows 3 different versions as follows:
>
> Windows XP SP3 (KB936929) Revision 108 (10/28/2008)
> Windows XP SP3 (KB936929) Revision 105 (7/8/2008)
> Windows XP SP3 (KB936929) Revision 104 (5/27/2008)
>
> Revision 104 is the original release.
> Rev 105 says "The applicability rules or prerequisites have changed".
> Rev 108 says the same thing as rev 105 with additional info: "The set of
> updates superseded by this update has changed."
>
> I've approved Revision 104 for installation since June 2008. I'm wondering
> if it's a good idea to change approval status on revision 104 to NOT
> Approved. Then change Revision 108 status to Install.
Apparently you have the option "Auto approve new revisions" set to OFF.
As a result, it's incumbent upon you to manually approve revisions.
Revisions are typically released due to some flaw in the metadata, detection
logic, or packaging of an update. Revisions do not contain new update bits.
Thus, if Rev. 104 successfully installed to your systems, then it's really
not an issue where you go from here.
Were the option "Auto approve new revisions" set to the default value of ON,
Rev. 105 would have been automatically approved, and Rev. 104 marked as
expired. Subsequently Rev. 108 would have been automatically approved, and
Rev. 105 marked as expired.
If you don't have a program in place to regularly review revisions and
process them as needed, I would encourage you to reset the "Auto approve new
revisions" option back to the default value of ON.
> In general, is it a good idea to do change approval status of older
> revisions to NOT Approved and pick the latest revision instead?
In general, it's a good idea to leave the system in the default setting and
let the new revisions automatically approve, and expire the old revisions.
If processsing manually, though, the manual steps would be somewhat similar,
except you cannot "expire" an update.
1. APPROVE the newer revision for installation.
2. UNAPPROVE the older revision.
3. Consider marking the older revision as DECLINED.
The Server Cleanup Wizard converts all expired updates to declined, which
then faciliates that removal of useless content from the filesystem; but if
you've disabled the "Auto approve new revisions" option, then the arrival of
the new revision cannot expire the old revision, and you'll have to manually
decline the older revision in order to faciliate filesystem cleanup
activities.
--
Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP(x2), MCTS(x5), MCP(x7), MCBMSP
Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)
MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
My Websites: http://www.onsitechsolutions.com;
http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com
My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin
|
|
"Lawrence Garvin (MVP)" <lawrence[ at ]nospam> wrote in message
news:eeAtPUfOJHA.4876[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] >
> Apparently you have the option "Auto approve new revisions" set to OFF.
> As a result, it's incumbent upon you to manually approve revisions.
I didn't recall changing that settings but I checked it anyway. Let's see if
we're talking about the right Option settings. Here it is:
WSUS console - Options (left pane) - click Automatic Approvals (on the right
pane)
Then click Advanced tab
Here's what I have under "Revisions to Updates" group:
- Automatically approve new revisions of updates that are already approved
(Already Checked)
- Automatically decline updates when a new revision causes them to expire
(Already Checked)
Let me know if this is not the options you're talking about. If it is,
apparently it isn't working the way it should. How do I fix this problem?
|
|
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 09:31:53 -0700, "John" <a> wrote:
[Quoted Text] >I'm using WSUS version 3.0.6000.374 on Windows Server 2003 R2 with SP2.
>
>I just noticed that there are 2 newer revisions for Windows XP Service Pack
>3. The revision history shows 3 different versions as follows:
>
>Windows XP SP3 (KB936929) Revision 108 (10/28/2008)
>Windows XP SP3 (KB936929) Revision 105 (7/8/2008)
>Windows XP SP3 (KB936929) Revision 104 (5/27/2008)
>
>Revision 104 is the original release.
>Rev 105 says "The applicability rules or prerequisites have changed".
>Rev 108 says the same thing as rev 105 with additional info: "The set of
>updates superseded by this update has changed."
>
>I've approved Revision 104 for installation since June 2008. I'm wondering
>if it's a good idea to change approval status on revision 104 to NOT
>Approved. Then change Revision 108 status to Install.
>
>In general, is it a good idea to do change approval status of older
>revisions to NOT Approved and pick the latest revision instead?
For some updates that is what happens automatically when MS deliverers a
revision. If you have automatically approves revisions to updates set that is.
>
--
Dave Mills
There are 10 types of people, those that understand binary and those that don't.
|
|
"DaveMills" <DaveMills[ at ]newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
news:8dehg41ag4k7j9ggk40ra4bf817a7qdgdv[ at ]4ax.com...
[Quoted Text] >>
>>In general, is it a good idea to do change approval status of older
>>revisions to NOT Approved and pick the latest revision instead?
>
> For some updates that is what happens automatically when MS deliverers a
> revision. If you have automatically approves revisions to updates set that
> is.
Auto approve newer revision is enabled. It still does not auto approve newer
revisions.
Is this a bug?
|
|
"John" <a> wrote in message news:ue$s9MgOJHA.3748[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] >
> "DaveMills" <DaveMills[ at ]newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message
> news:8dehg41ag4k7j9ggk40ra4bf817a7qdgdv[ at ]4ax.com...
>>>
>>>In general, is it a good idea to do change approval status of older
>>>revisions to NOT Approved and pick the latest revision instead?
>>
>> For some updates that is what happens automatically when MS deliverers a
>> revision. If you have automatically approves revisions to updates set
>> that is.
>
> Auto approve newer revision is enabled. It still does not auto approve
> newer revisions.
> Is this a bug?
Depends. Is it possible that the option was disabled for a period of time?
It's not retroactively applied, if re-enabled, so the fact that Rev 105 and
Rev 108 were not approved (assuming Rev 104 was approved before the arrival
of 105/108), suggests that the option was not enabled during the period of
time that Rev 105 and Rev 108 were synchronized to your machine.
For the record, I've not heard of any instances where this option failed to
apply.
In any event, what caused the scenario is now up to you whether you care to
delve into the root cause any deeper; the remediation is still the same.
1. Approve the lastest revision.
2. Unapprove the earlier revisions.
3. Decline the earlier revisions (if desired).
4. Run the SCW to remove the earlier revision content.
--
Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP(x2), MCTS(x5), MCP(x7), MCBMSP
Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)
MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
My Websites: http://www.onsitechsolutions.com;
http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com
My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin
|
|
"Lawrence Garvin (MVP)" <lawrence[ at ]nospam> wrote in message
news:OMzFJcgOJHA.4304[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] >> Is this a bug?
>
> Depends. Is it possible that the option was disabled for a period of time?
No. As my reply (to you) says, I did not recall changing any settings. I
double checked it. I'm right. It's checked. It's been checked for months or
years. That setting has not changed ever. Yes, I am the only admin at this
company.
> It's not retroactively applied, if re-enabled, so the fact that Rev 105
> and Rev 108 were not approved (assuming Rev 104 was approved before the
> arrival of 105/108), suggests that the option was not enabled during the
> period of time that Rev 105 and Rev 108 were synchronized to your machine.
I understand that.
I've never touched that setting as far as I can remember. Let's just say
that I might have disabled it once before (I'm getting old, easy to forget).
I've re-enabled shortly after disabling it back then. Here is the fact: when
I checked auto approve settings today, it's CHECKED. I did not just
(re)enable auto approve setting today. It is ENABLED already.
How can I be so sure, you ask? According to my WSUS sync log, on Oct 29,
2008, at 3:25 AM, there is 1 Revised Update, namely Windows XP SP3
(KB936929). I may be losing my memory but it's not that bad. I remember that
I did not change any settings a day ago. Once again, auto approve setting is
ENABLED prior to revision 108 detection or even before revision 105 was
detected.
> For the record, I've not heard of any instances where this option failed
> to apply.
Ok, so I'm the first. Is there any way to check if that setting has been
tampered with at some time in the past? Is it recorded Apps/System Log or
perhaps within WSUS (log)?
I just unchecked auto approve setting and rechecked it a minute ago. Will
that solve it? I guess I'll find out when there's new updates.
> In any event, what caused the scenario is now up to you whether you care
> to delve into the root cause any deeper; the remediation is still the
> same.
>
> 1. Approve the lastest revision.
> 2. Unapprove the earlier revisions.
> 3. Decline the earlier revisions (if desired).
> 4. Run the SCW to remove the earlier revision content.
Done. I manually UNapproved revision 104 and Approve the latest rev for
install.
|
|
"John" <a> wrote in message news:eBaRr%23gOJHA.780[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] >
> I just unchecked auto approve setting and rechecked it a minute ago. Will
> that solve it? I guess I'll find out when there's new updates.
>
I just want to clarify the above. What I did a few minutes ago was:
1) Disable Automatically approve new revisions of updates that are already
approved
2) click Apply - click OK
3) Enable Automatically approve new revisions of updates that are already
approved
4) click Apply - click OK
So the result is:
Auto approve new revisions is ENABLED.
I'll see how it behaves when there are new update revisions in the future.
Finally, I know this action will not automatically approve Windows XP SP3
revision 108.
Rev 104 must be manually unapproved for install and rev 108 must be manually
approved for installation. I got that.
|
|
"John" <a> wrote in message news:eBaRr%23gOJHA.780[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Is there any way to check if that setting has been tampered with at some
> time in the past?
The %ProgramFiles%\Update Services\Logfiles\Change.log would record any
instances if the WSUS Server configuration were changed.
> I just unchecked auto approve setting and rechecked it a minute ago. Will
> that solve it?
No, as I mentioned earlier, re-enabling the option is not applied
retroactively.
>> In any event, what caused the scenario is now up to you whether you care
>> to delve into the root cause any deeper; the remediation is still the
>> same.
>>
>> 1. Approve the lastest revision.
>> 2. Unapprove the earlier revisions.
>> 3. Decline the earlier revisions (if desired).
>> 4. Run the SCW to remove the earlier revision content.
>
> Done. I manually UNapproved revision 104 and Approve the latest rev for
> install.
Cool. Then you're done. :-)
--
Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP(x2), MCTS(x5), MCP(x7), MCBMSP
Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)
MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
My Websites: http://www.onsitechsolutions.com;
http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com
My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin
|
|
"John" <a> wrote in message news:%237IowGhOJHA.1744[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > > "John" <a> wrote in message news:eBaRr%23gOJHA.780[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> >> I just unchecked auto approve setting and rechecked it a minute ago. Will >> that solve it? I guess I'll find out when there's new updates. >> > > I just want to clarify the above. What I did a few minutes ago was: > > 1) Disable Automatically approve new revisions of updates that are already > approved > 2) click Apply - click OK > 3) Enable Automatically approve new revisions of updates that are already > approved > 4) click Apply - click OK > > So the result is: > Auto approve new revisions is ENABLED. > > I'll see how it behaves when there are new update revisions in the future.
Please do. It's not impossible that there was a defect in Rev 105 and/or Rev
108 that failed to carry through the approval; I'm just saying that nobody
has observed that issue to this point.
I can't evaluate the scenarion on my system because I've never approved XP
SP3 for installation via WSUS (all of my current XP systems are baselined at
SP3 during installation).
Although, I do have the metadata. I see that Rev 108 just came down
yesterday. Rev 108 would not have been auto-approved because Rev 105 was
never approved, so the key question revolves around the date of 7/8/08 when
Rev 105 was released. (Interestingly, I don't have Rev 104 on my system.)
> Finally, I know this action will not automatically approve Windows XP SP3
> revision 108.
>
> Rev 104 must be manually unapproved for install and rev 108 must be
> manually approved for installation. I got that.
Cool. You're good to go, then!
--
Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP(x2), MCTS(x5), MCP(x7), MCBMSP
Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)
MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
My Websites: http://www.onsitechsolutions.com;
http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com
My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin
|
|
I just want to jump in here and confirm I'm seeing the same thing as
John. My auto approval has always been to approve the latest revision
and I also noticed it didn't do that with the 108 revision to XP SP3.
When I did go to approve it, I was prompted to again accept the EULA, so
my thinking is that it wouldn't approve automatically because of that.
Can anyone else confirm that?
Lawrence Garvin (MVP) wrote:
[Quoted Text] > "John" <a> wrote in message news:%237IowGhOJHA.1744[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> >> "John" <a> wrote in message >> news:eBaRr%23gOJHA.780[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>> >>> I just unchecked auto approve setting and rechecked it a minute ago. >>> Will that solve it? I guess I'll find out when there's new updates. >>> >> >> I just want to clarify the above. What I did a few minutes ago was: >> >> 1) Disable Automatically approve new revisions of updates that are >> already approved >> 2) click Apply - click OK >> 3) Enable Automatically approve new revisions of updates that are >> already approved >> 4) click Apply - click OK >> >> So the result is: >> Auto approve new revisions is ENABLED. >> >> I'll see how it behaves when there are new update revisions in the >> future. > > Please do. It's not impossible that there was a defect in Rev 105 and/or > Rev 108 that failed to carry through the approval; I'm just saying that > nobody has observed that issue to this point. > > I can't evaluate the scenarion on my system because I've never approved > XP SP3 for installation via WSUS (all of my current XP systems are > baselined at SP3 during installation). > > Although, I do have the metadata. I see that Rev 108 just came down > yesterday. Rev 108 would not have been auto-approved because Rev 105 was > never approved, so the key question revolves around the date of 7/8/08 > when Rev 105 was released. (Interestingly, I don't have Rev 104 on my > system.) > > >> Finally, I know this action will not automatically approve Windows XP >> SP3 revision 108. >> >> Rev 104 must be manually unapproved for install and rev 108 must be >> manually approved for installation. I got that. > > Cool. You're good to go, then! > > > |
|
"Wade Godfrey" <wade[ at ]lcsd.logan.k12.ut.us> wrote in message
news:OJBejlqOJHA.1160[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] >I just want to jump in here and confirm I'm seeing the same thing as John.
>My auto approval has always been to approve the latest revision and I also
>noticed it didn't do that with the 108 revision to XP SP3.
Thanks Wade. Now I know I'm not the only one having this issue.
> When I did go to approve it, I was prompted to again accept the EULA, so
> my thinking is that it wouldn't approve automatically because of that. Can
> anyone else confirm that?
That's a good point although I see no reason to present the EULA on newer
revisions because we've seen the EULA and accepted it the first time we
approved the patch. Btw, yes, I was prompted for the EULA too.
|
|
"Lawrence Garvin (MVP)" <lawrence[ at ]nospam> wrote in message
news:ea8583iOJHA.4780[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] >
> The %ProgramFiles%\Update Services\Logfiles\Change.log would record any
> instances if the WSUS Server configuration were changed.
Ok, I found CHANGE.LOG but the content is too vague. I mean, it only says
"WSUS configuration has been changed". What was changed? It doesn't say.
I also found that same message (WSUS configuration has been changed)
recorded a few times in the past but they really don't help me find out what
was changed at the time. That's what I'm looking for to prove that I did or
didn't make any changes to auto approve new revisions setting.
It doesn't matter now because someone else (Wade Godfrey) is having the same
issue with auto approve new revisions. His reply says a lot. At least you
know I'm not lying about my auto approve new revisions setting being Enabled
all the time.
|
|
|
|
"John" <a> wrote in message news:uCN2Y1qOJHA.2312[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] >
> "Wade Godfrey" <wade[ at ]lcsd.logan.k12.ut.us> wrote in message
> news:OJBejlqOJHA.1160[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>I just want to jump in here and confirm I'm seeing the same thing as John.
>>My auto approval has always been to approve the latest revision and I also
>>noticed it didn't do that with the 108 revision to XP SP3.
>
> Thanks Wade. Now I know I'm not the only one having this issue.
>
>> When I did go to approve it, I was prompted to again accept the EULA, so
>> my thinking is that it wouldn't approve automatically because of that.
>> Can anyone else confirm that?
>
> That's a good point although I see no reason to present the EULA on newer
> revisions because we've seen the EULA and accepted it the first time we
> approved the patch. Btw, yes, I was prompted for the EULA too.
This could very likely be related.
Should the Rev 108 update require the EULA to be accepted if Rev 105 was
already approved.
Now, in John's case, this isn't relevant, because he only had Rev 104
approved, but if the issue also existed in Rev 105 (requiring approval of
the EULA), that could possibly explain why Revs 105 and/or 108 have not been
auto-approved.
I'm going to bounce this scenario up to the WSUS team and see if they have
any thoughts.
--
Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP(x2), MCTS(x5), MCP(x7), MCBMSP
Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)
MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
My Websites: http://www.onsitechsolutions.com;
http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com
My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin
|
|
"Lawrence Garvin (MVP)" <lawrence[ at ]nospam> wrote in message
news:%23ZcYUhrOJHA.4332[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > This could very likely be related.
>
> Should the Rev 108 update require the EULA to be accepted if Rev 105 was
> already approved.
>
> Now, in John's case, this isn't relevant, because he only had Rev 104
> approved, but if the issue also existed in Rev 105 (requiring approval of
> the EULA), that could possibly explain why Revs 105 and/or 108 have not
> been auto-approved.
>
> I'm going to bounce this scenario up to the WSUS team and see if they have
> any thoughts.
Thank you for your help. Let us know if you hear something.
|
|
"John" <a> wrote in message news:OS$Vo8rOJHA.1164[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] >
> "Lawrence Garvin (MVP)" <lawrence[ at ]nospam> wrote in message
> news:%23ZcYUhrOJHA.4332[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> This could very likely be related.
>>
>> Should the Rev 108 update require the EULA to be accepted if Rev 105 was
>> already approved.
>>
>> Now, in John's case, this isn't relevant, because he only had Rev 104
>> approved, but if the issue also existed in Rev 105 (requiring approval of
>> the EULA), that could possibly explain why Revs 105 and/or 108 have not
>> been auto-approved.
>>
>> I'm going to bounce this scenario up to the WSUS team and see if they
>> have any thoughts.
>
> Thank you for your help. Let us know if you hear something.
The preliminary answer I got back from my first point-of-contact is that
this behavior is by design, as legal requires "formal EULA acceptance" in
all scenarios, but it may still be that redundant acceptance is not
necessary and this is a flaw in the system.
I imagine part of it depends on whether a modification in a EULA would
require a new update package, or could be handled simply by issuing a
revision. If the latter, then acceptance of the EULA for every revision
won't be an option and we're all stuck.
If a modified EULA requires a new update package, then there's no reason to
require reacceptance of the same EULA.
I'll let you know if I get more details back on the question, but the
short-term answer looks like "It's behaving as designed" and, therefore,
auto-approval of EULA-required updates ain't gonna happen.
--
Lawrence Garvin, M.S., MCITP(x2), MCTS(x5), MCP(x7), MCBMSP
Principal/CTO, Onsite Technology Solutions, Houston, Texas
Microsoft MVP - Software Distribution (2005-2009)
MS WSUS Website: http://www.microsoft.com/wsus
My Websites: http://www.onsitechsolutions.com;
http://wsusinfo.onsitechsolutions.com
My MVP Profile: http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/Lawrence.Garvin
|
|
"Lawrence Garvin (MVP)" <lawrence[ at ]nospam> wrote in message
news:Ov5hgasOJHA.4772[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > I'll let you know if I get more details back on the question, but the
> short-term answer looks like "It's behaving as designed" and, therefore,
> auto-approval of EULA-required updates ain't gonna happen.
>
Thanks for the update.
|
|
|