flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] Squiggly 1.0 release candidate 0
Date Sun, 31 Aug 2014 22:19:06 GMT

> The lucene link looks like it is doc for a java package of classes, not a
> separate file in the release artifact.

It generated from the source and is in the release.

> IMO, we can link to link AOO

Which is exactly what we are doing in the RC.

> Remember that the Flex SDK already has a category X dependency for the
> optional embedded font jars.  The code that calls the category X jars is
> bundled in the one and only release artifact, but the code is set up such
> that those category X jars can be missing.

Which is exactly what the Squiggly release candidate is doing ie you can compile it even if
the dictionary files are missing.

>  The mentors ruled that was sufficient because nobody "must" download the category X
jars to
> successfully use the Flex SDK.

And the Squiggly release candidate doesn't force you to to download any category X jars (or
in this case LGPL data). So again we are in compliance..

>  I would expect we would do the same for Squiggly.

We are.

> But if you want, we can ask on the legal-discuss thread.

There is nothing that needs to be asked as the matter is resolved. Alex if you think it's
not please put it to a VOTE. 

If and when legal come up with a clear response we'll abide by that and change if required
how Squiggly is packackaged, or make it download LGPL code.

And can people please take a look at the RC to see if there are any other issues we need to
fix up.

View raw message