Execmgr Auto Install Is Set To False
If this option is set to False or No. Today is a great milestone for me because I just finished writing the ConfigMgr: Automation from Zero to Hero book. SCCM 2012 Software Deployment Errors. How to automatically make updates available to computers without forcing them. Thread SCCM Client fails, execmgr. Started 8 years, 8 months ago.
Some clients not TRYING to upgrade to 5.00.8239.1000 after R2->R2SP1 upgrade. Pulling what's left of my hair out.
It seems I'm asking for a lot more help than I'm giving these last few weeks, but here goes.
About 10 days ago I upgraded, (seemingly) smoothly to 2012 R2 SP1 (no CU). Because I didn't go to the most recent CU, and then ran into a problem covered by a CU (multi-digit values in my ADRs), and because 1511 came out, our plan is to move -- again -- to 1511 shortly, so I'd like to get my client non-upgrade problem sorted out.
Almost exactly 300 of my 600 machines upgraded to 8239. The other 300 machines I have are still sitting at 7958.
The 300 good machines are a good cross section of my machines. They aren't limited to one DP. The 300 machines that haven't tried to upgrade are also a good cross section, except that my servers are contained. [I assume this is because they're missing a maintenance window, but honestly, I haven't focused on them yet.]
When I look at machines, I see an otherwise unremarkable ccmsetup-ccmeval.log in the ccmsetuplogs folder. It runs every night just after midnight as expected by the check process, but does nothing.
Because I've got plenty of server-to-client power, I had originally set a 1-day deadline for client upgrades. I later turned it off and reset it to 2 days, but nothing happened. It seems, at a glance, that the 300 machines that didn't upgrade are just, well, ignoring me.
On a 'problem' machine, searches for 'client upgrade' across my logs folder shows some of the following:
CcmExec.log
execmgr.log (trimmed)
Obviously this is concerning. Quick searches tell me to make sure that Additional software manages the deployment of applications and software updates is set to 'No' and it is, in my default settings, and it's not overridden in any other policy. ...and, of course 300 other machines upgraded :(
Thoughts? Others places to look?
'Configuration Manager Client Upgrade Package' is 100% distributed.
I have a Git repository that is accessed from both Windows and OS X, and that I know already contains some files with CRLF line-endings. As far as I can tell, there are two ways to deal with this:
Set
core.autocrlftofalseeverywhere,Follow the instructions here (echoed on GitHub's help pages) to convert the repository to contain only LF line-endings, and thereafter set
core.autocrlftotrueon Windows andinputon OS X. The problem with doing this is that if I have any binary files in the repository that:- are not correctly marked as binary in gitattributes, and
- happen to contain both CRLFs and LFs,
they will be corrupted. It is possible my repository contains such files.
So why shouldn't I just turn off Git's line-ending conversion? There are a lot of vague warnings on the web about having core.autocrlf switched off causing problems, but very few specific ones; the only that I've found so far are that kdiff3 cannot handle CRLF endings (not a problem for me), and that some text editors have line-ending issues (also not a problem for me).
The repository is internal to my company, and so I don't need to worry about sharing it with people with different autocrlf settings or line-ending requirements.
Are there any other problems with just leaving line-endings as-is that I am unaware of?
3 Answers
The only specific reasons to set autocrlf to true are:
- avoid
git statusshowing all your files asmodifiedbecause of the automatic EOL conversion done when cloning a Unix-based EOL Git repo to a Windows one (see issue 83 for instance) - and your coding tools somehow depends on a native EOL style being present in your file:
- for instance, a code generator hard-coded to detect native EOL
- other external batches (external to your repo) with regexp or code set to detect native EOL
- I believe some Eclipse plugins can produce files with CRLF regardless on platform, which can be a problem.
- You code with Notepad.exe (unless you are using a Windows 10 2018.09+, where Notepad respects the EOL character detected).
Unless you can see specific treatment which must deal with native EOL, you are better off leaving autocrlf to false.
Note that this config would be a local one (because config isn't pushed from repo to repo)
If you want the same config for all users cloning that repo, check out 'What's the best CRLF handling strategy with git?', using the text attribute in the .gitattributes file.
Note: starting git 2.8 (March 2016), merge markers will no longer introduce mixed line ending (LF) in a CRLF file.
See 'Make Git use CRLF on its “<<<<<<< HEAD” merge lines'
I am a .NET developer, and have used Git and Visual Studio for years. My strong recommendation is set line endings to true. And do it as early as you can in the lifetime of your Repository.
That being said, I HATE that Git changes my line endings. A source control should only save and retrieve the work I do, it should NOT modify it. Ever. But it does.
What will happen if you don't have every developer set to true, is ONE developer eventually will set to true. This will begin to change the line endings of all of your files to LF in your repo. And when users set to false check those out, Visual Studio will warn you, and ask you to change them. You will have 2 things happen very quickly. One, you will get more and more of those warnings, the bigger your team the more you get. The second, and worse thing, is that it will show that every line of every modified file was changed(because the line endings of every line will be changed by the true guy). Eventually you won't be able to track changes in your repo reliably anymore. It is MUCH easier and cleaner to make everyone keep to true, than to try to keep everyone false. As horrible as it is to live with the fact that your trusted source control is doing something it should not. Ever.
Update:
Note: As noted by VonC, starting from Git 2.8, merge markers will not introduce Unix-style line-endings to a Windows-style file.
Original:
One little hiccup that I've noticed with this setup is that when there are merge conflicts, the lines git adds to mark up the differences do not have Windows line-endings, even when the rest of the file does, and you can end up with a file with mixed line endings, e.g.:
Sccm Execmgr.log Auto Install Is Set To False. Do Nothing
This doesn't cause us any problems (I imagine any tool that can handle both types of line-endings will also deal sensible with mixed line-endings--certainly all the ones we use do), but it's something to be aware of.
The other thing* we've found, is that when using git diff to view changes to a file that has Windows line-endings, lines that have been added display their carriage returns, thus:
* It doesn't really merit the term: 'issue'.