Given the market share of Linux and the generally more technically proficient users of that platform (i.e. capable of, and used to installing multiple dependencies separately from the command line), I don’t think we should sacrifice improved functionality for the vast majority just to keep feature parity for a small minority. We can always educate them on the options in the README and on the wiki and website.
EdB On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > Trying to get back to one thread... > > On 10/9/14, 11:43 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > > >> > >Which would have minimal impact on them, Flex Unit doesn't (as far a sI > >know) really have any install steps as such it just download, check md5, > >and unpack. For the stand alone install is doesn't need an install > >script, for the integrated into the SDK install it requires one. Linux > >users are not least out and can still use ant if they want. > I¹m still confused. If you change the installer to offer FlexUnit as an > optional step, how will we offer the same option to Linux users? > > >> > >>I think Justin is suggesting that we store more of the installer > >>intelligence on the server. > > >Yes currently it spread out between 3 xml files, and given we depend > >on things who location could change and gives us a more flexibility > >in changing how previous versions are installed. > > Are the three files you are referencing sdk-installer-config-4.0.xml, > apache-flex-sdk-installer-config.xml and installer.xml? The first two are > already separated out. Installer.xml could be broken out, but a copy > should probably be packaged in the zip/tar so that Linux users don¹t have > to download two things in order to run their ant install, but then you are > back to not being able to tweak things for the Linux folks. > > -Alex > > > > -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
