Hello,

We have just published this technote that describes the policy for
automatic deployment packages:

http://www.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21983614

Andy

____________________________________________________________________________

Andrew Raibeck | IBM Spectrum Protect Level 3 | storman AT us.ibm DOT com

IBM Tivoli Storage Manager links:
Product support:
https://www.ibm.com/support/entry/portal/product/tivoli/tivoli_storage_manager

Online documentation:
http://www.ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/SSGSG7/landing/welcome_ssgsg7.html

Product Wiki:
https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/community/wikis/home/wiki/Tivoli%20Storage%20Manager

"ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU> wrote on 2016-05-17
11:36:43:

> From: Bjoern Rackoll <backup.rackoll AT RRZ.UNI-HAMBURG DOT DE>
> To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
> Date: 2016-05-17 11:37
> Subject: Re: Reg: tsm ba client autodeploy package 7.1.4.1
> Sent by: "ADSM: Dist Stor Manager" <ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU>
>
> Hi Neil, hi all (especially TSM dev),
>
> I got a similar statement today from IBM support.
>
> There is no official communication for that, but support says that one
> reason is that they intend to publish client fixpacks about every three
> months in the future.
>
> So first, why is there no official statement?
>
> Second, why isn't the release schedule changed first and then ceased to
> publish autodeployment packages for interim fixes?
>
> And third, as Neil already said, why aren't customers allowed to
> continue to deploy interim fixes if that is necessary?
>
> @IBM: PMR number can be provided upon request.
>
> Regards,
>
>     Bjoern
>
>
> > Srikanth
> >
> > I complained about the very same thing last month:
> > https://adsm.org/lists/html/ADSM-L/2016-03/msg00008.html
> >
> > I've since discovered that IBM have indeed made the decision to no
> longer supply exported packages for interim fixes. If you're using
> auto-deployment then you need to find another mechanism for pushing
> out interim fixes because it now only works for fix packs. (But then
> if you've got such a mechanism, why bother with TSM auto-deployment
> in the first place?)
> >
> > I've not given up hope that IBM will see how perverse this
> approach is and reverse its decision. The current client fix pack
> (7.1.4) was released in November and was followed by a flash in
> February which described how data loss could occur and recommended
> 7.1.4.1 be installed on vulnerable systems. How exactly did they
> think large shops were supposed to push that update out to affected
> systems? Maybe customers should wait for the 7.1.5 client? No, hang
> on - they skipped that one so we're currently waiting on 7.1.6 with
> its associated .EXP files.
> >
> > I agree that there are good reasons why customers should think
> carefully before auto-deploying interim fixes. For what it's worth I
> think IBM should tell them the reasons, publish the exported
> packages anyway and give them the *choice* of being able to perform
> tightly targeted deployments where there is a requirement to do so.
> >
> > Regards
> > Neil
> >
> >
> >
> > Neil Schofield
> > Tivoli Storage Manager SME
> > Backup & Recovery | Storage & Middleware | Central Infrastructure
> Services | Infrastructure & Service Delivery | Group IT
> > LLOYDS BANKING GROUP
>
>
>
> --
> Björn Rackoll
> Universität Hamburg
> Regionales Rechenzentrum
> Zentrale Dienste
> Schlüterstr. 70
> 20146 Hamburg
> Tel.: +49 (0)40 42838 - 63 11
> Fax: +49 (0)40 42838 - 62 70
> Mobil: +49 (0)172 427 0301
> E-Mail: backup AT mailman.rrz.uni-hamburg DOT de
>