Skip to main content
  • EN

On June 24th I downloaded the version for Desktop and Server 2022.0.0.1 Build 22339.

 

I update my system with those products, and validate the functionality of the workspaces as well as the configuration of the server. It looks like everything is ready to be moved to production environment.

I give notice to IT that the artifacts can be moved to production and they require FME Server 2022.0.0.1 Build 22339.

 

Now I receive a notice from IT that the mentioned version does not appear in the downloads list of FME.

 

Now I have to make a whole verification with a new version.

 

I am pretty confident that I did not download a Beta version.

https://www.safe.com/support/downloads/" target="_blank">http://web.archive.org/web/20220522040833/https://www.safe.com/support/downloads/

 

FMEServer Version_2022-08-03_8-29-32 

Hi @xtian79​ apologies for the confusion there! You can usually find our previous FME builds on this page, however it looks like the build you're looking for isn't listed. I've found those links for you so IT can download the matching version:

FME Desktop Download Link

FME Server Download Link

 

Hope this helps 😀

What you can do to avoid this in the future is download and save the installers (Desktop and Server) prior to starting your test process. Safe does issue intermediate patches from time to time.

@danminneyatsaf​ Thanks for the links, But I would like to know the reason why this version is not listed. I require to give an explanation to IT team.

 

@Hans van der Maarel​ your suggestion is totally valid, as a matter of fact I did saved them, but have in mind the following points:

  1. The IT guys, especially the one in charge of security is paranoid (he is paid to be in that way), will not deploy into production environment an EXE file handed by a developer with out first verifying the installer and the documentation related to the version to be installed. If the version does not appear in the vendor web page......well they are getting suspicious.
  2. Adding 3GB of payload to an installation package of 20 MB (The actual size of the workspaces to be deployed) does not make a sense from the point of view of transmission or storage.
  3. This is not at OpenSource initiative, and I am downloading the official version, (neither a Beta or an Alpha). it should be listed.
  4. Delivering a software product (in this case workspaces) to clients, involves good documentation of the third party required to execute/use the product. I cannot deliver to clients, because if my own IT team is paranoid, clients' IT team's are even more paranoid.
  5. This is not a new problem, it has been tackled before with huge effort: check package managers/libraries that hold the historical version of libraries (the official releases) like PIP, Package repositories of anaconda, Nuget,...

@danminneyatsaf​ Thanks for the links, But I would like to know the reason why this version is not listed. I require to give an explanation to IT team.

 

@Hans van der Maarel​ your suggestion is totally valid, as a matter of fact I did saved them, but have in mind the following points:

  1. The IT guys, especially the one in charge of security is paranoid (he is paid to be in that way), will not deploy into production environment an EXE file handed by a developer with out first verifying the installer and the documentation related to the version to be installed. If the version does not appear in the vendor web page......well they are getting suspicious.
  2. Adding 3GB of payload to an installation package of 20 MB (The actual size of the workspaces to be deployed) does not make a sense from the point of view of transmission or storage.
  3. This is not at OpenSource initiative, and I am downloading the official version, (neither a Beta or an Alpha). it should be listed.
  4. Delivering a software product (in this case workspaces) to clients, involves good documentation of the third party required to execute/use the product. I cannot deliver to clients, because if my own IT team is paranoid, clients' IT team's are even more paranoid.
  5. This is not a new problem, it has been tackled before with huge effort: check package managers/libraries that hold the historical version of libraries (the official releases) like PIP, Package repositories of anaconda, Nuget,...

There is the Whatsnew.txt for 2022.0.0.2, but build 22339 is not listed there so that would probably just make them more paranoid.

 

I don't know what else to tell you. IT should find a balance between their paranoia and the need for you and your colleagues to actually be able to do your job.

@xtian79​ Our policy is to upload a version of FME after every minor release. After a minor release, we only upload the most recent micro release for that minor. For example: When we released 2022.1.0.0, we uploaded 2022.0.1.1 to our past versions page. This was the only 2022.0.1.X version of FME that we uploaded, because it was the most recent micro.

 

The reason why the build does not show in the Change Log is because there were no 'public-facing' changes made in the build. The Change Log entries are generated using our internal issue tracking system, so if no issues were resolved in that build then that build won't show up in the Change Log.

 

Hope this clears things up.

Reply


Community Stats

30,167
Posts
114,519
Replies
37,824
Members
Terms & ConditionsCookie settings
A product of
Safe Software respectfully acknowledges that we live, learn and work on the traditional and unceded territories of the Kwantlen, Katzie, and Semiahmoo First Nations.