Beware that you are not going to be able to produce a standalone binary package because we can not distribute binaries/swcs for any code that we don't have the sources for or have the right to distribute and I'm not even sure about this last part. Off the top of my head this includes the playerglobal.swc, the AIR Stuff, textLayout.swc and osmf.swc.
Carol On 3/21/12 4 :21AM, "olegsivo...@gmail.com" <olegsivo...@gmail.com> wrote: >Hi, just asking, has it been considered, and if it was, what were the >decisions? Is Flex going to be / will try to be distributed as an >installable Linux package? >For non-Linux people: Linux applications (and not only applications, >basically, every thing that can be found on your system) can be >"installed" >using some kind of package management program. Common examples are dpkg, >deb, aptitude, apt-get, synaptic etc. The software that can be installed >in >this way needs to provide package description, this would usually include >listing the dependencies, so that installer tools would know what other >packages are needed for the software to function properly. So, for >example, >Flex SDK could be distributed as 2 packages: flex-sdk and flex-sdk-dev >(flex-sdk-sources), first having least dependencies, second would require >building tools such some Java and Ant and whatever else is needed during >the SDK compilation. A good thing that an installer may do would be also >to >put Flex executable binaries into user space (for example, make sure that >mxmlc is linked to /usr/bin/ or wherever the users saves their software). > >I don't think there may be any problems with Flex being hosted by Apache >in >this regard because most if not all of the Apache projects are installable >in this way. >his >Best. > >Oleg
