flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: Solution to OSMF/Sourceforge problem with Installer
Date Thu, 09 Oct 2014 19:15:49 GMT
Why do we need to change the installer?  What part can’t be done in the
ant script?

On 10/9/14, 12:10 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosmallm@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Alex Harui <aharui@adobe.com> wrote:
>> No particular objection.  Are you suggesting we go back and re-release
>> previous releases or is this just for the future?
>I think just for future.  This requires a change to both the SDK (release
>build script) as well as the Installer.  It would be better if we make a
>clean break from the past.  So, this means that if someone wants to
>download Flex SDK verion equal to or lower 4.13, they need to use
>3.1 or lower.  For Flex 4.14 and higher, they need Installer 3.2.
>We have done the same exact thing in the past when we made TLF part of the
>SDK and no one really complained about it.
>> I¹m not sure OSMF is the main culprit for failed downloads.  AIR was
>> likely to choke for me in recent testing.
>From all the complaints we are receiving, it seems that fixing the OSMF
>question would bring a lot of stability to the Installer.  Plus, I feel
>that the Adobe servers are a more resilient than the SourceForge servers.
>> -Alex
>> On 10/9/14, 11:52 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosmallm@gmail.com>
>> >How about we download the OSMF swc during the release build stage and
>> >package it with the SDK artifact like we do other third party
>> >like Batik, Velocity and Xerces?
>> >
>> >Pros:
>> >* Since we resolve this dependency during build time, end users don't
>> >affected by Sourceforge downtimes
>> >* If Sourceforge is down when we make the build, we just get the
>> >dependency
>> >from our previous good build.  OSMF has not changed for a while
>> >* Our Installer already has a way to force users to accept the license
>> >OSMF.  So very little change required to the Installer.
>> >
>> >Cons (?):
>> >* OSMF would have to be made a 'required' component instead of
>> >Since it is a small, single file, I don't think this is quite a
>> >* Installer needs to be reworked a bit, to eliminate the optional OSMF
>> >download path.  Should not be a major change.
>> >
>> >What do folks think of this proposal?
>> >
>> >Thanks,
>> >Om

View raw message