Nobody reads them anyway.
Tom
On 09/10/14 20:53, Alex Harui wrote:
> One risk of my
> suggestion is that the MPL portion will be “below the fold” and folks
> might miss it.
Hi,
Over the last month we've had more than 1000 errors trying to download osmf,
but most of these occurred in the last week.
The other download seem more problematic over the last month and a bit we've
had:
- 230 or so errors for agij40.jar
- 80 or so errors for afe.jar
Both of these have a h
Hi,
My understating of bundling category B software is that it OK to include the
binary, and you only need to prompt the user to download the source. [1] So
what we are doing goes beyond what is the minimal legal requirement. Do you
need to agree to licence terms when you use firefox for instan
On 10/9/14, 12:49 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote:
>>IMO, the LICENSE we show for the main package would have the MPL stuff in
>> it, not just the AL license, so then there wouldn¹t be a checkbox to
>>check.
>>
>
>Ah, this is so much better than what I had proposed. Just add the MPL
>license te
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>
> On 10/9/14, 12:34 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> >
> >> The set of required and optional steps for new installs is determined
> >>by a
> >> config file. The FlexJS install, for
On 10/9/14, 12:34 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>> The set of required and optional steps for new installs is determined
>>by a
>> config file. The FlexJS install, for example, doesn¹t offer or install
>> OSMF. I think we can control e
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> The set of required and optional steps for new installs is determined by a
> config file. The FlexJS install, for example, doesn’t offer or install
> OSMF. I think we can control everything from the config file and
> installer.xml, which woul
The set of required and optional steps for new installs is determined by a
config file. The FlexJS install, for example, doesn’t offer or install
OSMF. I think we can control everything from the config file and
installer.xml, which would be desirable for our Linux users anyway.
-Alex
On 10/9/14
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> Why do we need to change the installer? What part can’t be done in the
> ant script?
>
Is it possible to stop OSMF download by just changing the installer.xml?
I was also thinking about changing the wording from 'optional' to
'required', and
Why do we need to change the installer? What part can’t be done in the
ant script?
On 10/9/14, 12:10 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
>
>> No particular objection. Are you suggesting we go back and re-release
>>all
>> previous releases or is
On 10/9/14, 12:04 PM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote:
>
>I just realized that OSMF is already a 'required' component. So ignore
>this point.
I was surprised by this as well. I¹m not sure if that is true for the
binary package.
IMO, if you are not using Spark Video, it shouldn¹t matter if that SW
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Alex Harui wrote:
> No particular objection. Are you suggesting we go back and re-release all
> previous releases or is this just for the future?
>
I think just for future. This requires a change to both the SDK (release
build script) as well as the Installer.
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 11:52 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala
wrote:
> How about we download the OSMF swc during the release build stage and
> package it with the SDK artifact like we do other third party dependencies
> like Batik, Velocity and Xerces?
>
> Pros:
> * Since we resolve this dependency during
No particular objection. Are you suggesting we go back and re-release all
previous releases or is this just for the future?
I¹m not sure OSMF is the main culprit for failed downloads. AIR was more
likely to choke for me in recent testing.
-Alex
On 10/9/14, 11:52 AM, "OmPrakash Muppirala" wrot
14 matches
Mail list logo
