We've been with the product for years now, and it kind of feels like Jamf bought a competitor not to incorporate a working low cost and lightweight option for EDU, but it force them into Pro. (Assuming repackaging in Composer was actually the correct course of action here.) Is the time to do that expected when using Jamf School? If I do that, and I find that flat packages are xar archives, will I then need to know the specific format and options for xar archives that are compatible with School in case, I don't know, School doesn't like the way an XML table is formatted, let's say. Cool cool, so now I'm going to spend some time researching flat packages versus non flat packages, because it looks like I need to know in order to deploy and run an installer from a trusted publisher like Adobe, when distributed from Jamf. Composer returns that there are unsupported scripts for "flat packages". Let's use Composer to repackage the signed package from the publisher that doesn't work. "It's not allowed to upload more than 5 files." The interface just sits there like there was nothing added.
#Adobe creative cloud desktop not installing zip#
There's a pkg inside the zip called install.pkg, but adding this pkg does. "The uploaded asset cannot be processed." The file uploads to the tenant, but fails at the end with an error: Using AJ's suggestion as an example, where I'm getting stopped is "upload this zip directly to Jamf." In the School interface, when you do this, you drag and drop or browse to the file as an "In House MacOS package".
I'm also trying to work with a trusted method of getting this (and many other non-store apps) deployed through Jamf School. At the risk of ranting, it really is frustraing.
0 kommentar(er)
