On Oct 24, 2014, at 10:49 AM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> It was not Bertrand that said that. It was Brane.
>
> Sorry my mistake, it been a long thread.
No problem. Glad to clear that up.
>
>> There are no issues with having an EXTERNAL dependency any more than there’s
>> a concern of h
Hi,
> It was not Bertrand that said that. It was Brane.
Sorry my mistake, it been a long thread.
> There are no issues with having an EXTERNAL dependency any more than there’s
> a concern of having a dependency on an operating system.
Unless it's Category X [1], that's clear at least. Although
It was not Bertrand that said that. It was Brane.
It was a question which I answered by giving a background on JBurg. Case closed.
I understood the question as Alex did that he was confused on how we could be
compiling Cat B in our distributed binaries (which is not the case).
There are no issu
On 10/24/14, 12:19 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> We can go ask the poster what he meant, but I am going to assume he is
>>either mistaken
>
>Bertrand (an ex mentor of our project) usually knows what he talking
>about.
My records show it was not Bertrand.
>
>While we've stated osmf as r
Hi,
> We can go ask the poster what he meant, but I am going to assume he is either
> mistaken
Bertrand (an ex mentor of our project) usually knows what he talking about. I
have seen this optional ve mandatory mentioned a few times elsewhere as well,
but was unable to find a clear definition /
On 10/23/14, 5:23 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> When did he say that?
>
>Here:
>"I have trouble visualising how any ASF project could have /mandatory/
>dependencies on anything from the B-list."
The above quote is from the general@ thread and was not written by anyone
on this list.
>
>
On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Justin Mclean
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > The problem was not with the dependency per se. It was with getting
> JBurg onto the user’s machine.
>
> Which is done by code in the FlexJS release not the installer (it
> installer.xml file). The installer installs other Apache p
Hi,
> When did he say that?
Here:
"I have trouble visualising how any ASF project could have /mandatory/
dependencies on anything from the B-list."
I guess it depends on what mandatory means, if it's needed to in order to work
and isn't optional then we probably have a large issue.
Thanks,
Ju
Hi,
> I just created “flex-extras” and we’ll put in some appropriate text both on
> the Github side and Apache Flex side. Hopefully this will prove to be a
> smooth resolution.
Also are you also sure it's possible that you can upload and distribute large
binary releases on github? See [1] [2]
HI,
> BTW, I still have plans to create a separate business entity that, among
> other things, will distribute Flex and FlexJS binaries that are
> essentially how Adobe distributed SDKs.
Other people already have business entities set up and can do this if they got
permission/license from Adobe
Hi,
> The problem was not with the dependency per se. It was with getting JBurg
> onto the user’s machine.
Which is done by code in the FlexJS release not the installer (it installer.xml
file). The installer installs other Apache products ie the Flex SDK which don't
have a dependancy on JBerg
J"
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The only reason I bring this up; some people verify the package has not
>>>> been modified if getting it from another source.
>>>>
>>>> -Mark
>>>>
>>>> -Original Message-
>&g
g it from another source.
> > >
> > >-Mark
> > >
> > >-Original Message-
> > >From: Harbs [mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com]
> > >Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 10:00 AM
> > >To: dev@flex.apache.org
> > >Subject: Re: Conven
ote:
>
> >The only reason I bring this up; some people verify the package has not
> >been modified if getting it from another source.
> >
> >-Mark
> >
> >-Original Message-
> >From: Harbs [mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com]
> >Sent: Thursday, Octo
gt;From: Harbs [mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com]
>Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 10:00 AM
>To: dev@flex.apache.org
>Subject: Re: Convenience Binary Policy
>
>I think that's up to us.
>
>On Oct 23, 2014, at 4:56 PM, Kessler CTR Mark J
> wrote:
>
>> I like the idea so
The only reason I bring this up; some people verify the package has not been
modified if getting it from another source.
-Mark
-Original Message-
From: Harbs [mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 10:00 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: Convenience Binary
I think that’s up to us.
On Oct 23, 2014, at 4:56 PM, Kessler CTR Mark J
wrote:
> I like the idea so far. Would there still be hashes / signatures on the
> non-official releases?
>
> -Mark
I like the idea so far. Would there still be hashes / signatures on the
non-official releases?
-Mark
-Original Message-
From: Harbs [mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 9:48 AM
To: dev@flex.apache.org
Subject: Re: Convenience Binary Policy
Just a bit of
When did he say that?
On Oct 23, 2014, at 4:47 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> As Bertrand stated no ASF project can have mandatory dependancies on
> something with a category B licence. Am I right is assuming it mandatory?
The problem was not with the dependency per se. It was with getting JBurg onto
the user’s machine.
If the installer was not “officially Apache”, we would not have needed any of
the discussion we had. We could have simply fixed things on Github and gone on
with life. I’m looking to help make thi
That’s right. I just created the organization. I did not yet create any repos.
I wanted input from everyone else on how we’d structure it before we did that.
On Oct 23, 2014, at 4:47 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Currently I'm seeing:
> "his organization has no public repositories."
Just a bit of background here for anyone not following the discussion on
@general[1]
This was prompted by the issue with the failing FlexJS installer. The general
consensus at Apache is that releases are for source code only. “convenience
packages may be provided as well, but they are not offic
Hi,
> Sure. Let’s discuss away! :-) (Nothing has changed yet.)
So can you explain why you want to move the installer out of Apache? It's
FlexJS that has the dependancy on JBerg not the installer. The installer didn't
have to be modified to "correct" the FlexJS / JBerg issue.
BTW if JBerg is a
Sure. Let’s discuss away! :-) (Nothing has changed yet.)
The repo *is* public, and my intention was that we’d give all Flex committers
write access.
On Oct 23, 2014, at 4:28 PM, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Moving to flex dev list from general.
>
>> I just created “flex-extras” and we’ll p
Hi,
Moving to flex dev list from general.
> I just created “flex-extras” and we’ll put in some appropriate text both on
> the Github side and Apache Flex side. Hopefully this will prove to be a
> smooth resolution.
I know you mean well but this really needs to be discussed on the dev list/wit
25 matches
Mail list logo
