On 10/29/13 3:06 PM, "christofer.d...@c-ware.de" <christofer.d...@c-ware.de> wrote:
>It's not just the pom, but the directory structure and the naming of the >file ... so all of these would have to be adjusted. That might be possible as well, as long as we treat the AIR SDK as a single file and don't have to mess with its internals. > >Chris > >-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >Von: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] >Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. Oktober 2013 22:46 >An: dev@flex.apache.org >Betreff: Re: License Stuff > >Like I said, I don't know much about Maven. > >IIRC, there was some thinking that, because the FP and AIR SDKs are the >"leaf" of a dependency tree, there wasn't much more than a pom.xml needed. > I believe I even looked at a few files on some Maven repo and that >seemed to be the only major difference. Have we since decided >differently? > >But let's also separate out FP, from AIR. > >The FP SDK is just playerglobal.swc. It is a single file so if there was >a pom.xml next to it, would that be sufficient? Would it be worth it if >we only made non-AIR apps work well with Maven? > >AIR is a compressed tree of files. There is an issue about the fact that >the runtime is bundled, but otherwise, is there a capability in Maven to >deal with compressed files that don't have the subfolders also populated >with pom.xml and other files? If not, what is the minimum set of changes >we'd have to make to get an AIR SDK on the download server to work with >Maven (skipping over the license acceptance issue for now). > >-Alex > >On 10/29/13 2:37 PM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >>I can't see how 1 or more pom.xml on their server could help Alex, we >>need artifacts and classifiers along with the project descriptor, I >>mean trees entire mavenized SDKs. did I miss or forgot something again >>:-) ? >> >>-Fred >> >>-----Message d'origine----- >>De : Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Envoyé : mardi 29 octobre >>2013 22:32 À : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: License Stuff >> >>Adobe did not want to deal with registration or a way to avoid the >>license dialog, but I'm pretty sure we got permission to put up pom.xml >>files on the current downloads server. >> >>On 10/29/13 2:29 PM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>IIRC Adobe didn't want to invest in a server just for that. >>> >>>-Fred >>> >>>-----Message d'origine----- >>>De : Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Envoyé : mardi 29 octobre >>>2013 22:20 À : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: License Stuff >>> >>> >>> >>>On 10/29/13 2:14 PM, "Frédéric THOMAS" <webdoubl...@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>Also, I can retrieve it at the moment but when I read the specific >>>>Air license terms, I understood it couldn't be distributed in piece >>>>but only in only one full and original distribution. >>>Yes, that's probably true, and the runtimes are part of the SDK. I >>>don't think they make a distribution without the runtimes. >>> >>>Just to be sure, we once talked about Adobe putting pom.xml files on >>>its downloads server. Have we decided that is insufficient and a >>>distribution agreement is better? Either way, there is some sort of a >>>license acceptance requirement unless we can get an exemption. >>> >>>-Alex >>> >> >
