On 7/15/14 10:08 PM, "Justin Mclean" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Hi, > >> Furthermore, adl is part of the AIR sdk and is not owned by Apache Flex, >> and not under Apache Flex source control. It should not be in the >>source >> package nor should it end up in the bin folder after building. > >Correct (and adl is not in the source package) but it is required for a >working SDK. Just because something compiles doesn't mean we should >release it - it needs to work as well. :-) > >> I appreciate your desire to look for problems, but please be careful >> before pulling the fire alarm. There's been a lot of false alarms. > >How exactly is this a false alarm? Because you claim the source package should contain bin/adl. I"m not seeing any way we can bundle that in the source package as ADL is under Adobe licensing. > If you following the instructions in the README you end up with an SDK >that is unable to compile AIR or mobile applications. In my books that >makes it a regression issue. A regression from what release of Apache Flex? Or are you trying to compare the source package against Adobe Flex 4.6? > > >Not even sure why this is being discussed further, it been confined by >several people this is an issue with the RC, either you think it is >something we should fix before releasing and thus should vote -1 on the >release or you think we should fix later and release the RC now and vote >+1. What change would you propose to the RC that would conform to source package requirements about dependency licenses? -Alex
