On Oct 20, 2014 12:55 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > > On 10/19/14, 11:44 PM, "Alex Harui" <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > >I just thought of a possible fix. I think I can take the FlexJS 0.0.2 > >binaries and inject Jburg into them and post them on dist or somewhere > >without a vote. In theory, if Jburg is in the right place after the > >unzip/untar, the script will not try to download it. It turns out as I > >was looking into this that I discovered that Jburg is under CPL so it is > >Category B so we should be making folks accept the license for it in the > >installer. I would add that license step as well by modifying the > >apache-flexjs-installer-config.xml. > > > >Thoughts? > I actually got this to work. You can try it yourself by using the > installer, selecting “Show Dev Builds” and choosing FlexJS 0.0.2a from the > dropdown. > > I think we could make this the “official” FlexJS 0.0.2 binaries for the > Installer. All of the compiled sources are the same. The only difference > in these binaries is the addition of the JBurg jar. I would update FlexJS > 0.0.2 entry in the sdk-installer-config-4.0.xml to reference these > binaries. The binaries are currently on my people.a.o folder. We could > move these binaries up to dist and the mirrors, but it sounds like there’s > only about 5 installs a day right now. Even if we get a burst from Om’s > talk if it settles back down it should be ok, and if traffic stays high we > should get moving on FlexJS 0.0.3. > > Thoughts?
+1, obviously :-) Thanks, Om > -Alex >
