Allow priority ( order) between applications without dependancies
For example, application with priority 100 will be install before application with priority 500.
There is some case were dependencie is not sufficient / too strict.
We try to keep a minimal Task Sequence and therefore have a lot of Applications that flow in after imaging is complete. It feels like the current order is random and I'd love to have the ability to set priority levels for Applications to have some say in what needs to be installed first.
Some of these Applications are very large and if one of the large ones is processed first the other software may not install until the large one completes.
I'd prefer to be able to set an Application priority like the OP suggested where higher priority installs are processed first. For instance, a CAD program can wait while a browser is being installed.
It seems that the current order is set and won't be deviated from. Even if several unrelated Applications have already cached they won't install before a larger still caching item if the larger item has a lower numbered cache folder. At very least it would be great if Applications finished caching could jump the line and be installed as the larger item continues to cache.
This would be very important for us. We install application son VDI machines, and was certain apps to install before others.
Chuck Kozakiewicz commented
i like the idea of weighted install order. we do a quarterly update release for certain non critical, 3rd party apps and it would be great to be able to order these unrelated installs.
Yes please. We have had to create "dummy" suite applications that have all required apps as dependencies. Then those apps may depend on other apps if installation order is important for pre/post install of plugins etc to a main app. This allows us to have a nice catalog view if the main app isn't the first thing we want to install. It gets more messy if you have to share one of those applications in multiple suites, you then need to create multiple deployment types and link dependency relationships etc. Can easily become a nightmare if you retire the wrong application!
Robby Moeyaert commented
yes, lack of control of how dependencies are installed (or just control of general order of installation) is why we are not using App model right now and are sticking to TS and Packages.
Alternatively make dependencies of an application behave like task sequences, i.e. allow a fixed installation order for dependencies. I voted for this anyway, achieves almost the same result but might be more compley to maintain.