Hi, > So, I think the questions are: > 1) Is it ok to have the Installer install a different binary package than > the one that was derived from running the build script on the source?
According the the guideline new and old I say that would be a no, but given it easily corrected by a small modification and a release. Can I suggest we take that path? > 2) Is it ok if that binary package isn’t hosted on dist/mirrors? Anyone can make their own binary and host it anywhere, I think the question is more should the "official" binary be hosted away from dist/mirrors. There are reasonable serious security, scalability, uptime / reliability and bandwidth questions here, we should use Apache infrastructure where we can. > 3) Is it ok if that binary package includes a modification to LICENSE? See answer to 1. > 4) Should we leave the current "FlexJS 0.0.2” choice in the list? Depends if people are most using the installer or download/ant to install - which we don't really have a way of knowing. Give it's alpha quality, and it's causing an issue to current users (who we need to think of as potential future users and give them the best experience we can), I would suggest removing. Thanks, Justin
