Patch Reporting Currently looking for non-existent Java 8 Build 152

[beatlemike]

Hey, Patch Reporting is currently looking for a non-existent Java 8 Build 152. They are only on Build 151. Is there anyway to fix this?

[robinsonjo]

Hello @beatlemike :

Thanks for pointing this out.

At the moment we're reporting using the Patch Set Update versions AND the Critical Patch Update. The Patch Team will be discussing the PSU vs CPU release cycle for Patch Reporting soon.

Check here for updates next week.

Thanks!

Jonny

[Taylor_Armstron]

@beatlemike .... might want to bump this feature request up:

https://www.jamf.com/jamf-nation/feature-requests/5066/fix-oracle-jre-and-jdk-patch-definitions-to-use-cpu-not-psu-versions

(as Robinsonjo said - Build 152 is the PSU version, which Oracle suggests only using if necessary for your specific situation. The odd-numbered versions are the "CPU" version which is the normal version installed in most cases.

[bvrooman]

It's not ideal for the pretty reporting interface, but you can use "less than" build 151 in smart groups to scope an update policy to machines that don't have either the latest PSU or CPU.

[beatlemike]

This could all be moot after Oracle discontinues the current way of doing JRE next year right?

@bvrooman yeah I created a work around, however we are also one of the half a dozen testing the RC in production and the new patch policies shouldn't have to be scoped like that, I forgot about the feature request below. If the Patch Team can figure out a future solution that would be great.

@robinsonjo @Taylor.Armstrong thanks for pointing that out, oddly I read that fetaure request and totally blanked out on it when I posted this. haha

Thanks all!!

[bvrooman]

@beatlemike In the RC (and presumably post-release), isn't it possible to just add your package to the 151 build and set a patch policy to use that version? I didn't try it directly, but all of the options to do so seemed to be there during my 300 test yesterday.

It still won't appear as "latest" if that is a concern for reporting, but it might be an option.

[beatlemike]

@bvrooman That's actually exactly what I am doing. It's the reporting that is going to be causing me issues. It's a petty thing that isn't major, I just didn't notice it before I started using the reporting feature. My management team has an annoyingly ridiculous pet peeve about the only color on their dashboards being green. In some ways it's good, keeps me from building sloppy policies, but also means I'll get nagged for a month or so when Java is on it's odd cycle.

But, yes, at least it's patching correctly.

Just means I get to educate a room full of people who make a lot more money than me again when I get back next week lol sometimes I think I spend more time doing that than anything else.

Thanks for all the helpful advice the last couple days though, it is much appreciated.

[TomDay]

This is really ugly in patch reporting. All of my devices have the latest update that is available from java but the reporting is showing 0% on latest version. Currently all my devices have build 171 but jamf is showing that 172 is the latest. All I can download from java is 171. Am I missing something?

[thoule]

@tom As said above, 171/172 is latest. 171 is their 'public' release and 172 is a 'beta' type release with other stuff in it. 172 includes additional fixes that may not be relevant or appropriate for everyone, so Oracle recommends 171 for most users. If you look harder, you'll find 172. Oracle points you to 171 as that's what they think you need.

Every time oracle releases an update, they have an Odd numbered, recommended release. And an Even number, Extra Features, release. They recommend the odd number, but some users want the even numbered... Jamf is still deciding which version to point to in patch reporting...

https://www.wysheid.com/general-dba-activities/oracle-database-patching-difference-between-psu-cpu-spu/

[Taylor_Armstron · Accepted solution]

If you look, JAMF added the PSU (odd-numbered) versions as a new entry under Patch Management at some point in the past month or two. You'll need to set it up again, but they have finally addressed the issue.

[TomDay]

@Taylor.Armstrong Exactly what I needed, a new patch management entry, thank you.

[beatlemike]

Yeah sorry, I forgot to add this was fixed. Glad you got it working for you now @TomDay