I'm in an App-V/SCCM environment, but I don't have access to the SCCM Management Console atm, so hopefully anyone here can give me a simple answer! :)

Is it possibe in an App-V SCCM package to deploy only a select OSD file of the total OSD's that belong to the virtual app?

Example: VirtApp1 has 3 shortcuts in the form of OSD1, OSD2, OSD3.

UserA should get all 3 shortcuts, so the whole VirtApp1 suite is imported.
Now UserB should only get the shortcuts in OSD1 and OSD2.

Is this possible without modifying the VirtApp1 sequence?

Thanks in advance!
0 Comments   [ + ] Show Comments


Please log in to comment

Rating comments in this legacy AppDeploy message board thread won't reorder them,
so that the conversation will remain readable.


Not speaking with alot of authority here, since I have limited experience with App-V and SCCM, but one option might be to make seperate manifest XML files containing the different sets of icons.

Another option might be to play with the users' local rights, specifically list rights on the shortcuts for the users, letting some users list shortcuts a, b and c, others get denied list rights on some of them..

Answered 02/02/2011 by: pjgeutjens
Red Belt

Please log in to comment
Well, let's just say it's a big administrative mess here. The app I am working on actually has 7 different database paths for 7 locations. I can't get any info on whether the users might be roaming or not, whether they might have access to more than 1 location or not, etc... Not really the scenario I listed above but I wanted to avoid the obvious answer of making 7 sequences for that situation.

This leaves me with very little options... adding the same sequence with different manifests might result in errors if it gets pushed to a client twice. Also there's too little info build the app with 1 script that sets the correct location based on environmental properties. I already gave up on the above as well, due to the deadline closing in. I just sequenced the app 7 times now with unique asset dirs and shortcuts, so there can't be any conflict. Which in this situation is also preferable over shortcut permissions on the client (since it saved me from scripting in the OSD :p)

Thanks for the reply though, it might indeed be a good alternative for the first situation I posted. I might still come across something like that [:D]
Answered 02/02/2011 by: Rheuvel
Brown Belt

Please log in to comment
Answer this question or Comment on this question for clarity