On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
> Why do we need to change the installer? What part can’t be done in the > ant script? > Is it possible to stop OSMF download by just changing the installer.xml? I was also thinking about changing the wording from 'optional' to 'required', and the multiple locale changes that would be required. I guess there is no need to change the Installer if OSMF is already a required component. Bottom line is that the Installer will not allow you to proceed until you explicitly select OSMF and agree to the MPL license. Thanks, Om > > 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 > >> > >> > >
