Software Deployment

Let me get this straight...aside from you're having posted in the wrong forum, you package applications on your DC?!?!?!?

Well till date I did not but Wise wants me to. I made this machine a DC and the error changed too.

Isn't wise telling me to package on DC?

This line is from Wise Package studio Help,
Moving a Package into Microsoft Active Directory section

[hr]

Other requirements:

lActive Directory must be set up on the computer that is running Wise Package Studio. You must have privileges to make changes in the Active Directory management console of an Active Directory server.

lIf distributing from the Projects tab or Software Manager, the share point directory must have been specified during installation using UNC or mapped drive notation.
[hr]

Isn't wise telling me to package on DC? No, not really. The choice of language is suspect, that's all. It's a stunningly bad idea. You should know in any event that DCs are meant to be just that: running any additional software on them isn't a good idea.

What they mean is that the machine ought to be able to connect to AD. Any machine with Windows 2000 and beyond qualifies on that score. The user needs suitable privileges to be able to create groups, Group Policy Objects and links to those objects.

TBH, I wouldn't bother using WPS to add packages to GP. Just use GPEdit.msc. Much easier and more reliable.For example, how would you add a transform using the WPS route? Answer: you can't.

Well I felt the same too but Wise is not too clear. I wanted to leave my main DC alone so I made it into an additional DC. Even then the feature did not work. This is a very simple domain with no antivirus or firewalls. Perhaps it is a feature which was not tested at all.

As for "how would you add a transform using the WPS route?"
I am not sure how would wise do it but I was just checking all the features out. If it was really implemented then there can be an extra entry for the mst. After all Wise does give you a form with lots of choices.

Thanks for replying !

the feature works ok, its just crap anyway not enough control over things.

I would say you just did it wrong. I think you can get away with having ad management tools on your wise machine. On 2k3 I don't think you need anything to make this work.

Not real keen on you making your packaging server a DC seems like a very rash measure to do on a whim.

Well not sure what I did wrong but this even does not work on a DC so I will give it a miss. After all no one else seems to be using it.

A test network is just for testing. Test and break and then test some more. It is not a live one.

BTW do you pack on the server you installed Wise Package Studio?

BTW do you pack on the server you installed Wise Package StudioNo. A server is a server is a server.

Besides, you should be packaging on a machine which is built as per your target audience's base build: OS, IE and core applications. With technology like VMWare/Virtual PC/VirtualBox, there is a powerful argument for staged versions of that build held in snapshots, e.g. one with just the OS, one with OS and IE, etc., etc. You should also have at least one image/VM with the same build but set up for an account with normal user privileges (your packaging account will, of course, have local administrator privileges) so that you can test how your packages will deploy to real users.

I package in Vmware. XP SP2 and also one machine with XPsp2 with Office 2003 sp3. These are my build machines. I use snapshots too and use normal domain accounts to check the GPO install. It seems that I am doing things as they are supposed to be!

Is a server that sacred? Then why does the Symantec Team explain how to build the package on the Wise Package Studio server? Don't believe me? Have a look on

http://www.symantec.com/connect/articles/wise-package-studio-part-2-building-your-first-package

Though this time he used the virtual OS method. But he could have used another machine in VMware as he is doing it all in VMware

Is the server sacred? Yes.
1. That is an article written by a third-party, not by Symantec (click the 'EricW' link)
2. Did you somehow miss the post by 'saratnig' at the foot of the article?

My server is sacred too

Clicking on the link you will see that he writes that "In the last year i worked very closely with the people from Altiris to improve some of they're products" . It is not that third party. He may have been roped in by Symantec for writing this.

I did not miss the post by saratnig. That is the very reason I did not ask him the same question.