I checked in an ant script for flex-falcon. The proposed pattern is to put it all in an installer.xml file. It presumes you have expanded the binary kit and am running ant -f installer.xml in that expanded kit. It will download and copy stuff into that same folder. I guess maybe we should add an install target to the main build.xml to call the installer.xml file. The new GUI installer is going to just look for installer.xml in any package it unbundles.
You are welcome to take on writing the installer.xml for flex-sdk, or I will get to it over the next few weeks. My current plan (once I get past this PGP Key fiasco) is to get the flex-asjs and flex-falcon ant scripts to work then get ant_on_air to run them, then get the GUI installer to run it before trying the flex-sdk scripts. -Alex On 12/17/13 3:05 AM, "Tom Chiverton" <t...@extravision.com> wrote: >On 16/12/2013 20:24, Alex Harui wrote: >> On 12/16/13 11:14 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> >>wrote: >> >>> On Linux, we can probably assume that Ant is already installed, or >>>just a >>> 'yum install' away from being available. That way, they can just use >>>the >>> ant script just as well. >> Interesting. Tom, do you agree that Ant would be sufficient for a Linux >> install? >So a new Flex SDK installer would (only) depend on Ant (and therefore a >JDK) ? Makes sense to me. > >To answer your question about the current AIR-based installer and Linux >'requires a separate install of AIR': >The web page install badge sends a .deb file, but this doesn't contain >enough information to correctly install the AIR runtime if it's missing, >and Adobe's AIR runtime release doesn't (and never had) correct >dependency information, or post install scripts to fix known issues with >library paths, hence the manual steps on the Wiki. >This is just one of the things AIR just doesn't do right when packaging >for Linux, and obviously there's not much will at Adobe these days to go >back to AIR 2.x and fix the packaging. > >There's also the problem that we don't seem to have a .rpm (or .air) of >the installer that would allow other distributions to work even as well >as .deb based ones can at the moment. >Which is why I posted the other week about setting up a (Debian style >.deb, and also Fedora style .rpm) proper repository for Linux users that >would contain a package that would correctly install and setup the AIR >runtime, then install the current AIR installer. > >But then this thread cam e up about rewriting the installer anyway, and >it seems to dovetail nicely. If the new installer is far enough away, >it's still worth the time to make a standard repository. > >Tom
