3 Replies Latest reply on Jan 14, 2014 2:53 PM by Bill Robinson

    When is the "expected behavior" response from BMC support not acceptable

    Mike Jones

      (Rant Alert!)


      I have other examples, but I will start with the most recent


      I logged a call because I created some new system package types (based on the RedHat 6 and Windows 2008 R2 drop-down when creating the new type). When I create a system package using the new type the normal "OS Components" tick list is missing


      The summary of the response from support was - "This is expected behavior" and a link to the KB article https://kb.bmc.com/infocenter/index?page=content&id=KA305765


      This isn't my expected behavior, I would expect a new system package type, of a format known to BSA to have all of the same properties as the built-in system package of the same format. The workaround is to add the manual command for the packages (dependant on the OS you are installing) - for RedHat in BSA ensure you add the ones that are included by default with the built-in package or the build won't complete.


      I consider this badly implemented functionality - not expected behavior

      (Rant Complete)