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" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> No particular objection. Are you suggesting we go back and re-release >>all >> 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 >Installer >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 >>more >> 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. > >Thanks, >Om > > >> >> -Alex >> >> On 10/9/14, 11:52 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> >>wrote: >> >> >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 >>dependencies >> >like Batik, Velocity and Xerces? >> > >> >Pros: >> >* Since we resolve this dependency during build time, end users don't >>get >> >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 >>for >> >OSMF. So very little change required to the Installer. >> > >> >Cons (?): >> >* OSMF would have to be made a 'required' component instead of >>'optional'. >> >Since it is a small, single file, I don't think this is quite a >>problem. >> >* 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 >> >>
