@taspharel
Thanks for the link and all the info. Postdownload scripts would be the ideal architecturally to place to make these changes. That would eliminate the manual work and allow for proper separation of content between FOG Server . My problems is ignorance of FOG coding and updating methodologies and future plans.
I have altered FOG for my own needs several times before - in the .32 era - only to find my changes overwritten at update. This became a maintenance issue at best and sometimes a total redo due to changes within FOG. Since I don’t know what the FOG Development team’s plans are, or how long-lived any time investment I make altering FOG would be, I decided long ago to minimize my changes to FOG. Also, for me, it’s far easier to debug changes to the Windows OS when they’re made in the Windows OS. To that end, my Snapins are only a 17K .exe that starts a Windows program I deploy to each PC, and all real installation content is accessed via SMB. This allows me to alter very large installations w/o re-uploading to FOG and requires much less work on the PC’s part installing content. So, as long as I have another option outside of FOG, changing the PostDownload process would be the riskier path.
Your post shows me there’s documentation available, but often it’s point in time - as in each post describes how do solve a problem at the time it was posted. It’s often unclear to which version of FOG the doc applies. It’s very hard for us to get a sense of stability and longevity from these posts.
The Project team is made up of fantastically hard working people, so it’s unreasonable to add to their burden by requesting architecture and development plan documentation. I prefer to expect that anything within FOG is subject to change as they see fit daily change to daily change. I’m thinking this has been essential to the team making FOG what it is today. Consequently, I try to put my hooks in after FOG.
Thanks very much for the help you and the rest of the team provided.
Jim