On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote:
> 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. > > But, won't removing the OSMF required item from installer.xml remove it from the list of licenses as well? We still want to show that because the user has to explicitly agree to MPL license before proceeding with the installation. I guess the Installer needs to interpret a new variable from the installer.xml that says 'For this component, just display license, don't download it'. Right? > -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 > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >
