Patch Title cannot be added twice to support separate architectures

areimer
New Contributor II

I am trying to support Blender via patch management. The problem with Blender is that it has two separate installers: Intel and Apple Silicon. Because I have both architectures in production, it appears that I would need to create two copies of the Blender patch title, one for Intel and one for Apple Silicon. The only problem is that when I try to create the second copy of the Patch title, it loads the data from the title I just edited and when I go to save after changing the name, it says that this title already exists for this site, no matter what I name/re-name the title. (I have scoped the title to a site in each case.) We are currently running 10.37.2. Any solutions (other than not using Patch or settling for running the Intel installer on Apple Silicon Macs)?

5 REPLIES 5

efil4xiN
Contributor

JAMF recommends making a mega package containing both versions. Then a post install that installs based on architecture type. I had to do this with Webex  in the past

areimer
New Contributor II

The workaround suggested is more work than abandoning Patch and just using normal policies, which I can orchestrate using AutoPkg with JamfUploader.

NOVELLUS
Contributor III

Hi  @efil4xiN , do you create a dmg with both installers inside and fetch the processor architecture (Intel® or M1® )in a script ? Is there a manual, how to create such a mega package?

JustinC
Contributor
Contributor

Hi @areimer a workaround that I have seen a number of customers use to address the multiple architecture issue is to add the Jamf Patch feed in again as an external source and use the second source specifically of Apple Silicon titles. Your Intel and Universal titles can be run from the internal source.

You can see an example of this in this post from @timdambrosio 

https://community.jamf.com/t5/jamf-pro/patch-management-for-both-intel-and-apple-m1-chips/m-p/227483

areimer
New Contributor II

Thanks for the suggestion. That failed for me, but I think that might be because of a bigger problem with our on-site instance.