Re: iACS optional package updates?

I spoke with Tim Rowe yesterday about this - from what he said, the base package is now always available at the listed download site. The Updates section you site uses the phrase "Several fixes" in addition to details about enhancements - for the base package.

The optional packages have to be downloaded from the ESS site, and updates come from there, as well. So if the page you site says there are fixes for the optional packages, then there's an update, and it's time to go to ESS again.

The note about the AFP driver does point to good links - just checked them. Even with Access for i fat client, that driver is best obtained from Ricoh, it'll be the latest.

HTH
Vern

On 12/3/2015 10:49 PM, CRPence wrote:

On 01-Dec-2015 09:48 -0600, Justin Taylor wrote:

Anyone know how IBM handles updates for the optional component
"IBM i Access Client Solutions - Windows Application Package"?

Perhaps the following link is helpful, despite the poorly /named/ link shown _underlined_ in the snippet of text quoted from that URL; "poorly named" because the text clearly calls-out the "base package" rather than using text that conspicuously implies fixes from the "optional packages" are included [or so I infer; see my followup after the snippet]?:
[http://www.ibm.com/systems/power/software/i/access/solutions.html#updates]
"...
The latest updates are available at
_IBM i Access Client Solutions base package_ [https://www.ibm.com/services/forms/preLogin.do?source=swg-ia]. The next available update is planned for December 2015

...

≥ November 2015

• IBM i Access Client Solutions - Windows Application Package:
• Fixes

• Note: The AFP Printer Driver for Windows 8.1 and Windows Server 2012 R2 must be obtained from Ricoh. For more information see support for AFP Printer Driver for Windows 7 and Windows 8.1.

• IBM i Access Client Solutions - Linux Application Package:
• Fixes
..."

Expanding the earlier updates [fixpack] descriptions show that some offer no fixes specific to any _optional package_, from which the logical inference is that there are only _base package_ fixes included. And conversely, the appearance of the bullet(s) explicitly naming one or both _optional package_ would seem to suggest these fixpacks must contain updates for more than just the _base package_.