Agreed – will find out what the story is and correct it!
From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Joe Martin D'Souza
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 9:21 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: SLM 7.6 Patch 001 - 2 directories on FTP
That’s what I thought by the file sizes.. It’s just odd that they were put
there on two different dates..
Joe
From: Weigand, John
Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 7:13 PM
Newsgroups: public.remedy.arsystem.general
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: SLM 7.6 Patch 001 - 2 directories on FTP
onday, November 08, 2010 5:25 PM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: SLM 7.6 Patch 001 - 2 directories on FTP site..
**
Both look like they have identical files. Is this just a mistake? Or should we
stick to the one having a later date?
FTP directory /smbu_patches//slm/7.6.00/patch001/ at epddownload.bm
Both look like they have identical files. Is this just a mistake? Or should we
stick to the one having a later date?
FTP directory /smbu_patches//slm/7.6.00/patch001/ at epddownload.bmc.com
03/30/2010 12:00AM141,849,265 SLM7.6.00.Patch001.aix.tar.gz
03/30/2010 12:00AM178,804,863 SLM7.6.00
iscussion list(ARSList) [mailto:
> arsl...@arslist.org] *On Behalf Of *Jason Miller
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 31, 2010 11:51 AM
>
> *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
> *Subject:* Re: SLM 7.6 Patch 001
>
>
>
> ** I just checked and there are two patch001/Patch001 directories.
bject: Re: SLM 7.6 Patch 001
** I just checked and there are two patch001/Patch001 directories. The files
in the directory have different dates. Maybe they are correcting it right now?
I think this is where David Easter reminds us to wait for the official notice
that a patch has been released :
tion Manager
> University of North Texas Computing & IT Center
> http://itsm.unt.edu/
>
> *From:* Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:
> arsl...@arslist.org] *On Behalf Of *Guillaume Rheault
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 31, 2010 9:31 AM
> *To:* arslist@ARSLIST.
Request System discussion list(ARSList) [arsl...@arslist.org] on
behalf of Rick Cook [remedyr...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 11:09 AM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: SLM 7.6 Patch 001
** Yeah, at times like that, I am reminded of the "Quality" mug in the Dilbert
s
hat building quality
installers isn't among them.
Rick
-Original Message-
From: strauss
Date: Wed, 31 Mar 2010 10:01:08
To:
Subject: Re: SLM 7.6 Patch 001
It isn't the first time, by a long shot, that their installers have used an
outdated client executable. So
ussion list(ARSList)
[mailto:arsl...@arslist.org] On Behalf Of Guillaume Rheault
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 9:31 AM
To: arslist@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: Re: SLM 7.6 Patch 001
**
wow... good catch, that is messed up
So BMC itself is using something unsupported
Guillaume
From
@ARSLIST.ORG
Subject: SLM 7.6 Patch 001
**
FYI, SLM 7.6.00 Patch 001 was released today, and includes updated Help.
Unfortunately they used a version 5.1.x installer for the help (not the patch),
so if your server is limited to a minimum-api-version of 10 (ARS 6.0) or higher
like ours was, the help
FYI, SLM 7.6.00 Patch 001 was released today, and includes updated Help.
Unfortunately they used a version 5.1.x installer for the help (not the patch),
so if your server is limited to a minimum-api-version of 10 (ARS 6.0) or higher
like ours was, the help installer will fail to authenticate.
12 matches
Mail list logo
