Mailing-List: contact dev-help@flex.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@flex.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of aharui@adobe.com designates
 64.18.1.236 as permitted sender)
From: Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com>
To: "dev@flex.apache.org" <dev@flex.apache.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 14:44:41 -0800
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex PixelBender Package 1.0
 (RC2)
Thread-Topic: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex PixelBender Package 1.0
 (RC2)
Thread-Index: Ac77eZQrpuPeRLfYQoSDUi6XWplRow==
Message-ID: <CED6121D.150C8%aharui@adobe.com>
References: <CED5CDDB.14E32%aharui@adobe.com>
 <CED5CF7A.14E4D%aharui@adobe.com>
 <21EC33AA-07A9-4696-8E36-2D24C4CA43DC@classsoftware.com>
In-Reply-To: <21EC33AA-07A9-4696-8E36-2D24C4CA43DC@classsoftware.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

OK.  Good point about the overlay of the notice files.  I'll add an ant
target to copy just the pbk/pbj.

The goal was to not move the PBK files out to a different repo and
instead, package a subset of the flex-sdk repo.  Do you think everything
on this list is required?  IOW:

1) can we tell folks in the RELEASE_NOTES not to run release-pixelbender
target and say that it is for extracting this package from a full flex-sdk
repo?

2) can we say that the LICENSE file contains extra licenses that may only
apply to the full repo?

3) can we say that the build.xml and properties files reference the full
flex-sdk build?

4) can we say that the clean target doesn't work?

Thanks for looking at it,
-Alex

On 12/17/13 2:26 PM, "Justin Mclean" <justin@classsoftware.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>Tested on OSX, there still a few things that need a little work IMO - see
>below.
>
>- MD5 and sigs all good (even though sig used is not in web of trust)
>gpg: Signature made Wed 18 Dec 04:28:17 2013 EST using RSA key ID DA9CCFF2
>gpg: Good signature from "Alex Harui (CODE SIGNING KEY)
><aharui@apache.org>"
>gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
>
>- README still needs a little work eg git location of pixel bender is?
>
>- Release candidate not tagged in git (as far as I can see)
>
>- NOTICE file is incorrect (contains licences that shouldn't be there)
>
>- RELEASE_NOTES doesn't look right to me
>
>- "ant build-pixelbender" seems to work
>
>- to build the project ANT_HOME is not required (as far as I can tell)
>
>- "ant release-pixelbender" requires PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME, AIR_HOME,
>TLF_HOME and FLASHPLAYER_DEBUGGER to be set. While it likely they are set
>if you building the SDK, they shouldn't be required.
>
>- "ant release-pixelbender" fails with this error:
>BUILD FAILED
>/Users/justinmclean/Downloads/pixelbender/apache-flex-sdk-pixelbender-1.0.
>0-src/build.xml:850: Warning: Could not find file
>/Users/justinmclean/Downloads/pixelbender/apache-flex-sdk-pixelbender-1.0.
>0-src/README.pb to copy.
>
>- "ant clean" fails
>
>- build.properties and env-template.properties refer to Apache Flex 4.12
>
>- The build.xml contains much more than is needed to just build this
>project
>
>-"ant rat-check" fails but all files I checked did have correct license
>header (this does require ANT_HOME)
>
>- I have concerns about the instal instructions "It is meant to be
>expanded on top of an existing Flex SDK folder." This means that existing
>README, RELEASE_NOTES , build.xml files etc will be copied over. I think
>it would be better to have ant or  a script that moved only the needed
>files into a SDK directory.
>
>Thanks,
>Justin