Sounds sensible and it would simplyfy stuff greatly :-) Chris
________________________________________ Von: omup...@gmail.com [omup...@gmail.com] im Auftrag von OmPrakash Muppirala [bigosma...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Freitag, 30. August 2013 09:27 An: dev@flex.apache.org Betreff: Re: AW: AW: FlexUnit On Aug 29, 2013 11:44 PM, "christofer.d...@c-ware.de" < christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: > > Well the poms themselves don't help with the libs. I will probably be adding functionality to download Adobe stuff after asking for confirmation by the user as we discussed some months ago as soon as I am picking up on the new maven plugin. Guess it would be possible to have binary Apache Flex Releases in public repos. But for now I really like the idea of integrating the Mavenizer and Deployer into the Installer (You Need that anyway in order to get a new FDK) > > Chris > I am up for it. Although I need to admit that most of what you just said is beyond my understanding. Let me propose a route. Tell me if I am in the right track. 1. User accepts all the licenses in the Installer. 2. Installation completes and SDK (FDK in your terminology) is ready to be used with an IDE. 3. We show the user an option to Mavenize the SDK. 4. If the user accepts, then we invoke the Mavenizer command-line script. 5. We show another prompt asking if the user wants to deploy it. 6. If the user accepts, then we invoke the Deployer command-line script. Is this acceptable/doable? This is doable from the Installer point if view. Thanks, Om > ________________________________________ > Von: Alex Harui [aha...@adobe.com] > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 29. August 2013 23:27 > An: dev@flex.apache.org > Betreff: Re: AW: FlexUnit > > On 8/29/13 8:08 AM, "christofer.d...@c-ware.de" > <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote: > > >Well the Problem are the Adobe libs ... playerglobal and some others, > >that we are not allowed to publish. There wouldn't be any trouble with > >deploying the rest of the FDK to public repos beyond that, I guess. But > >unfortunately these FDKs would be completeley useless without the missing > >Adobe libs :-( > > Yeah, but I thought we were going to try to put POMs on the Adobe download > server? What happened to that plan? > > -Alex
