[wpkg-users] A few issue

[Vasaris]

> On 02.03.2010 16:47, Vasaris wrote:
> > put the wrong path. Does that means, that the client is left in the unsupported state, until is logged on by admin and fixed bad config by hand? Or special script has to be made, to re-deploy on-top?
> 
> So how do you join a workstation to a domain (say, it's computer 
> password expired as it was off really long, you accidentally removed it 
> from AD, and so on), without either logging into it or starting a script 
> on it remotely?
> 
> This is the same situation here.

No, I think, it is not. Computer removal from AD is "critical" event. Of course, someone can re-add to AD such computer by script, if he know local admin credentials and domain admin credentials. But is is unsecure, as the password will be exchanged in the plain-text via scripts.

But in WPKG case, at least I have overlay, which is intact and working - GroupPolicy. I know, that Samba does not support this, and good programmer will always code the most general case. But it just do not hurt to add a few code lines for emergency/local re-parsing in case of emergency.

Therefore, I can use at least 2 ways to deploy WPKG and its settings.xml - Software Installation (IntelliMirror), and Startup/Shutdown scripts. Therefore, I can push any changes I want, as long as the target system is able to parse these, either automatically, or by some sort of triger. We have already agreed below, that auto-parsing, or parsing by local triger is a wise solution, compared to any kind of workaround, like using psexec.exe wrapper to do remote tasks. This strategy just minimizes possible points-of-failure, nothing more, nothing less.

> > Perhaps it would be wise to make a change, if wpkginst.exe finds settings.xml in its local directory, it updates registry lockers with this info every time it finds this file. It then can leave or delete it. It would be very simple to "push" changes to the service in case of usual or emergency reconfiguration, and would escape "unsupported" state once and for all. I think, that to "push" such file is much more simple, thant to execute remotelly with psexec (which is known to have version incompatibilieties by itself also!).
> 
> Yep, could be useful indeed.

should I post it as some kind of feature-request?

Regards,

Andrew.