The set of required and optional steps for new installs is determined by a config file. The FlexJS install, for example, doesn’t offer or install OSMF. I think we can control everything from the config file and installer.xml, which would be desirable for our Linux users anyway.
-Alex On 10/9/14, 12:20 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: >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 >> >> >> >> >> >>
