HI,
> And how about this for an idea? I will cut an RC3 tonight that is the
> same package but without the crypt folder? We can still get it 72 hours
> of voting in before the event.
As RM you can do what you want. If you do make a new RC I’ll compare changes
to previous and review it as quic
Hi,
> It’s wasn’t the closure library, as I don’t know of any other project
> bundling that. It was the MADlib project which use Blowfish [1] which is
> similar (and mostly replaced by) AES [2].
Sorry it was HAWQ not MabLib, Roman Shaposhnik is involved with both it may be
best to ask him.
Th
Hi,
> Which podling removed Google closure library? I'd to read their reasons.
It’s wasn’t the closure library, as I don’t know of any other project bundling
that. It was the MADlib project which use Blowfish [1] which is similar (and
mostly replaced by) AES [2].
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://en.
And how about this for an idea? I will cut an RC3 tonight that is the
same package but without the crypt folder? We can still get it 72 hours
of voting in before the event.
Thoughts?
-Alex
On 3/31/16, 3:36 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>Which podling removed Google closure library? I'd to read thei
Which podling removed Google closure library? I'd to read their reasons.
Sent from my LG G3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-- Original message--
From: Justin Mclean
Date: Thu, Mar 31, 2016 2:43 PM
To: dev@flex.apache.org;
Subject:Re: [VOTE] Release Apache FlexJS 0.6.0 RC2
Hi,
> Those
Hi,
> Those files are bundled from Google Closure Library. I opened a ticket
> [13] to see if they have or require an ECCN. In looking at the code, it
> doesn’t.
How do you come to that conclusion? [1][2]
> Did you see anything that would require it?
As I said I’m not 100% sure. [3] Another
I won't vote with a binding vote but I did use the installer to install
RC2, ran the installer script and compiled an app in IntelliJ.
All worked fine.
Mike
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
> On 3/31/16, 4:03 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
> >
> >The bigger issue is that is
On 3/31/16, 4:03 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>
>The bigger issue is that is looks like there is crypto code bundled here
>[11]. I’m not 100% sure if it required but have we followed the policy
>here [12] and informed the US government?
>11. ./js/lib/google/closure-library/closure/goog/crypt
>12.
Hi,
-1 binding due to crypto code included in binary. If that resolved I would be
+0 as I still can’t compile from the source package. If that was resolved I’d
vote +1.
I checked the following:
- Signatures and hashes good
- Source NOTICE+ LICENSE is OK
- Binary NOTICE is OK
- Binary LICENSE h
+1
I ran the Approval script and I built from the src download the SDK and
examples.
The hash was fine
notes and license are fine
scripts build everything without errors
ran three examples (all examples built without errors for me)
built the IDE-compatable SDK and tested it with Flash Builder, ru
10 matches
Mail list logo
