I think I'm missing something here. I have two packages, each of which
contains an identical policy. That's bad development practice, so I'm
attempting now to fix it by making a third package common to both.

So my starting point is:

- Package X, version 0.0.19, contains policy "foo"
- Package y, version 0.0.20, contains policy "foo"
- Both "foo" policies are code-identical.

I have two Null drivers with package X (0.0.19) applied.

I created:

- Package Z, version 0.0.1 (new package)
- Package X, version 0.0.20 (new version)
- Package Y, version 0.0.21 (new version)

I made packages X (0.0.20) and Y (0.0.21) depend on package Z (0.0.1 or
greater). I upgraded the first driver from package X (0.0.20) to package
X (0.0.21). I was prompted to install package Z, and did so.

I then went to policy "foo" and did a "remove from package", then "add to
package", and selected my new package Z. No problems so far...

Now when I attempt to upgrade the second Null driver to X (0.0.20),
Designer correctly recognizes the dependency, but just refuses to upgrade
because Z (0.0.1) is not installed on the driver.

If I remove package X, then re-install it, Designer correctly prompts me
to also install package Z. Shouldn't "upgrade" be doing the same thing?
Or is Designer silently tripping over the fact that policy "foo" is
installed because of the current version of X?

This is Designer 4.0.2 Auto Update 5, Build id: 20140423, in case it
matters. I guess I should try this in Designer 4.5 to see if that does
anything different.

David Gersic dgersic_@_niu.edu
Knowledge Partner http://forums.netiq.com

Please post questions in the forums. No support provided via email.
If you find this post helpful, please click on the star below.