5 Replies Latest reply on May 11, 2010 7:27 AM by phoffmann

    Detection concerns in SWD


      I've created an installation for Adobe Reader 9.3. I've attempted to add detection rules in. I set it up like this:


      Detect by: File Version

      File Path: C:\Program Files\Adobe\Reader 9.0\Reader\AcroRd32.exe

      Min. File version


      however when I push this out, the users that do have reader 9.3 are getting prompted to uninstall the product.


      any clues why the detection isn't working?

        • 1. Re: Detection concerns in SWD

          I tried the exact same thing and it did not work for me as well. Hope to see an answer because it is a problem when a machine that already has 9.3 gets hit with the update because it prompts them to run a repair.



          • 2. Re: Detection concerns in SWD

            Has anyone found any solutions on this?

            • 3. Re: Detection concerns in SWD

              I'm going to bump this one.

              Running into the same problems. I remember in 8.8 the detection page was only used for the dependent packages (http://community.landesk.com/support/thread/3431?start=0&tstart=0). i'm guessing it's the same in 9.0 but the help file has changed and says the detection works for the main package.


              anyone care to enlighten me (again)? :-)



              PS: seeing the logs makes me think the help file is wrong:

              Mon, 03 May 2010 16:41:46 The package cutepdf 2.8 x64 install was detected as being installed and will not be processed
              Mon, 03 May 2010 16:41:46 None of the dependent packages needed to be processed

              ...package gets installed...

              • 4. Re: Detection concerns in SWD

                Can we get a response to this please?

                • 5. Re: Detection concerns in SWD
                  phoffmann SupportEmployee

                  I would suggest opening this as a support call for the time being.


                  Once we can duplicate what package you're installing (and how you're trying to do it), we can more easily determine if there's a flaw in thinkg, a defect in our own logic, or anything in between - but there's not enough detail at this point that I'd think it'd be possible to guess either way.


                  That would help the most here, I think, as things seem a trifle 'too general' at this point, and it'd help a low being able to look at the specific issue, I think.


                  - Paul Hoffmann

                  LANDesk EMEA Technical Lead