2 Replies Latest reply on Mar 14, 2013 12:49 PM by SafeBoot

    Rollback EEPC: 6.2.x to 6.1

    Don_Martin

      Hello,

       

      for testing purposes we installed the extension for EEP 6.2 and are now going to Rollback to 6.1.2.314.

       

      What has been done so far:

       

      Package for EEPC 6.2 was checked in for Systemtree "test" while 6.1.2.312 remained in "Aktuell". After a couple of tests we decided to keep EEPC 6.1.2.314 until we will update the ePO to 4.6 (still using 4.5.x). Due to the following KB-Article https://kc.mcafee.com/corporate/index?page=content&id=KB75121 (this Case is true for us, due to other reasons we don´t go after these hotfixes) EEPC in Version 6.2 was unchecked but now there is no possibility to check in the packages for 6.1.2.314 (of course they don´t need to but...read the follwoing)

      Of Course those Packages are still within the ePO but due to the process of unchecking 6.2 the possibility for encryption users disapeared and when trying to check in the old EEPC-Packages following error message occurs:

       

      DB.gif

       

      Opening the table shows there are only zero's for every column. Question is how to handle this one? I just don`t want to delete the table, regardless that this ePO Installation is our Test environment, expecially not without knowing about consequences and side effects.

       

      Additional Info: We can still encrypt machines with 6.1.2.314 but are now, after uninstalling/unchecking the packages for 6.2, unable to apply Users - the Button "Encryption Users" dows not exist anymore like there is no checked in package in the extension tree for Endpoint Encryption (except the help for Version 1.0.0.10 which was prvided after unchecking 6.2). We could reinstall 6.2 without problems I guess but this can`t be the solution for us.

       

       

      Thanks in advance

       

      €: Problem solved with temporary renaming the Table (non-existent in our productive environment) but I would like to know about further dependencys. Maybe there is a technical whitepaper in which the changes wthin the Database are covered? Renaming DOES the trick but as you can imagine I am not quite happy without knowing what happens next oder what could be happening next.

       

      Nachricht geändert durch Don_Martin on 27.07.12 07:14:16 CDT

       

      Nachricht geändert durch Don_Martin on 27.07.12 07:42:41 CDT