AnsweredAssumed Answered

When will the Documentation Team correctly Document Requirements?

Question asked by Josh Perlmutter on Jun 14, 2016
Latest reply on Jun 23, 2016 by Josh Perlmutter

example of how this  is not correct: Apache-based Server Preparations for Linux - CA Single Sign-On - 12.52 SP1 - CA Technologies Documentation

 

currently lists the following:

 

  • libidn.so.11
    • This is a Library, not an RPM. your list is supposedly RPMs and you would have to give providing RPMs even if you move to libraries
  • libstdc++-4.x.x-x.el5.i686.rpm
    • this is invalid as the version number is  replaced by "x.x-x"
  • libidn.so.11.rpm
    • invalid RPM format. looks like a failed attempt to explain the library above
  • libXext.i686.rpm
    • invalid format, no version informaiton

 

i hope  i dont have to go on and call them all out individually to  get them corrected, but this is not what i would expect from a vendor wanting to win the market. if you cannot give us the correct requirements, how can we be sure  you wont play games if there is a problem and claim we did not have the right requirements?

 

i know there are open tickets on this. i also know there is zero traction on them

tech pubs, when will you fix these?

Outcomes