This discussion has been locked. The information referenced herein may be inaccurate due to age, software updates, or external references.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a similar question you can start a new discussion in this forum.

Java 7 Update 51 applicability

FormerMember
FormerMember

I'm seeing tons and tons of NotApplicable returns for Java 7u51 using the package that just came into Patch Manager yesterday, including my computer and others I know do not have 7u51 installed yet. Considering the only applicability rule checks the version of java.dll, this makes no sense at all to me. What gives?

EDIT: The "upgrade" package detects properly, for what that's worth.

  • Justin, I'm understanding that the "(Upgrade)" package is properly detecting as NotInstalled, but the FullInstall package is not when JRE7 is already installed?

    Specifically which of the three packages: x86, x64, or x86-for-x64 is displaying this behavior?

    I agree, considering that the only rule is checking the version of the java.dll, and that's an identical rule to the "(Upgrade)" package, it's very difficult to think why the behavior would be different.

  • FormerMember
    0 FormerMember in reply to LGarvin

    Lawrence, you're going to grow to hate my environment before too long. emoticons_happy.png

    I've only approved the x86 packages. The Full Install package is detecting as NotApplicable for computers that do not have update 51 already. The Upgrade package is only showing as NotApplicable if they never got Java 7 in the first place, which is what I'd expect. (And yes, now that I know there are some without it, that annoys the daylights out of me.)

  • I've only approved the x86 packages. The Full Install package is detecting as NotApplicable for computers that do not have update 51 already. The Upgrade package is only showing as NotApplicable if they never got Java 7 in the first place, which is what I'd expect.

    Thank you for the clarification.

    And you're certain that u51 has not been installed on those machines yet?

  • FormerMember
    0 FormerMember in reply to LGarvin

    Yup. My own PC was one of the problem children.

  • Thanks Justin. We're looking into this.

  • Content Authors identified a defect in the Prerequsite Rules for the x86 package and republished it this morning.

    Correct logic is: Arch='x86' AND (WindowsVersion >= '6.0.0.0 Server' OR WindowsVersion >= '5.1.0.0 Workstation')

    Published (incorrect) logic was: Arch='x86' AND WindowsVersion >= '6.0.0.0 Server' AND WindowsVersion >= '5.1.0.0 Workstation'  -- which can NEVER be true, ergo everything was N/A.

  • FormerMember
    0 FormerMember in reply to LGarvin

    Awesome, thanks!