On 9/12/14 5:15 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
>Hi, > >>> So we would have to replace the binaries right? As that is where it >>>gets >>> the installer script from? >> Yes. > >So we would need to branch 4.12 and 4.12.1, modify the installer.xml, >repackage, vote and release to fix? I suppose so, but last time I mentioned "slipstreaming" a release, some were concerned the mirrors wouldn't pick up a modified package of the same name. We might have to give them new names somehow, if we go this route. I'm still wondering if adding the "legacy" tag in sdk-installer-config-4.0.xml will fix 4.12.x. > >I'm sure this isn't going to be the first time we get an issue like this. >Could we have the install script check for updates and download a newer >install script if needed? IMO, the 4.14.0 script should work for 4.12.x. > >> I looked into this some more. Installer 3.1.0 will use >> sdk-installer-config-4.0.xml for 4.11 and earlier. It doesn't explain >>why >> 4.11 worked and 4.10 and 4.9.1 didn't. > >4.9 and 4.10 uses OSMF 1, we don't have an alternative download path for >that. So I'm unable to fix that unless we put the 1.0 swc somewhere we >can get at it. I can put OSMF1 on SF. > >> And if that works, one thing that might work for 4.12.x is to set the >> legacy="true" attribute on their entries in the .xml file. > >I can't see why 4.12 isn't actually working as the instal script does >have paths that should work. Is this a bug with the installer? You sure you pulled the right tag? That looks like the HEAD that I modified a couple of days ago. -Alex
