Hi Om,

In the other thread there is a proposition about package naming. Alex and
me propose something.

Thanks,
Piotr

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017, 09:26 OmPrakash Muppirala <[email protected]>
wrote:

> I'm making progress on this front.
>
> I will get the apache-royale npm package first.  Let's test this out and
> figure out the next steps for the one with swf version.
>
> Would it be better to call it apache-royale-with-air instead of
> apache-royale-with-swf?
>
> Thanks,
> Om
>
> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Alex Harui <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > OK, we can stick with two standalone packages.
> >
> > FWIW, the CI build finished and I successfully ran:
> >
> > sudo npm install -g
> > http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/royale-
> > asjs/lastSuccessfulBuil
> > d/artifact/out/apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz
> >
> > The npm progress bar did not show anything at all during the download and
> > unpacking.  I don't know if it is supposed to or not.  Could be something
> > about the CI server that does not return progress info.  So the UI did
> > nothing for quite a while, then it ran the rest of the install.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Alex
> >
> > On 12/12/17, 12:13 PM, "[email protected] on behalf of OmPrakash
> > Muppirala" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 12:04 PM, Alex Harui <[email protected]>
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> FWIW, we also have the option of making the SWF support more of an
> > >> "add-on" instead of its own package.  IOW, right now both packages
> > >>contain
> > >> mostly the same files and the SWF support is additional files and some
> > >> slightly different settings.
> > >>
> > >> An add-on package would just contain the additional files and settings
> > >>so
> > >> to get SWF support you would have to "npm install" two packages.
> > >>
> > >> I don't think I care which way we go on that.
> > >>
> > >> -Alex
> > >>
> > >
> > >The problem with this approach is that the npm install scripts need to
> > >know
> > >the logic of where the additional files should go.  I would rather have
> > >the
> > >release build scripts contain all that logic.  So, the npm install
> scripts
> > >would simply download the zip/tar of the release artifact.  Then
> download
> > >external dependencies if needed.
> > >This way, we can change the folder structure all we want, without having
> > >to
> > >redo the logic in the npm installer scripts.
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >Om
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> On 12/12/17, 11:17 AM, "[email protected] on behalf of OmPrakash
> > >> Muppirala" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >I think it would be good if we do: apache-royale-x.x.x and
> > >> >apache-royale-with-swf-x.x.x.
> > >> >That makes it much clearer.
> > >> >
> > >> >Thanks,
> > >> >Om
> > >> >
> > >> >On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Alex Harui
> <[email protected]
> > >
> > >> >wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> OK, I think I got the packaging fixed.  The CI server is building
> it
> > >>and
> > >> >> should finish in 90 minutes or so.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> You can try it out locally if you want by syncing up and running
> "ant
> > >> >> release" and pointing NPM at the tar.gz file in the out folder.  I
> > >>think
> > >> >> you need to "npm uninstall flexjs" first.  I only tried the
> -jsonly-
> > >> >> package and it installed for me.  I didn't do any further testing
> to
> > >>see
> > >> >> if the command-line scripts worked or not.  If you run against the
> > >>other
> > >> >> -bin.tar.gz it should try to run the code that downloads Adobe
> stuff,
> > >> >> which might need tuning.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I'm thinking we should create s.apache.org URLs for the nightly
> > >>builds
> > >> >>so
> > >> >> you could do something like:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>   npm install
> > >>
> > >>>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> > http%3A%2F%2Fs.apach
> > >>>>e
> > >> .
> > >> >>org%2FRoyale090NightlyBuild&data=02%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com
> > >> %7C5cf18485a
> > >> >>7ea436ab37008d541952581%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178de
> > >> cee1%7C0%7C0%7C6364
> > >>
> >>87031193280540&sdata=YTCxCqR%2Brex4xYW1l%2B0SL2Yl5d1DeLXLeukb7JyT8Ls%
> > >> 3D&r
> > >> >>eserved=0
> > >> >>
> > >> >> But before we do that, we should decide on the package names.
> Right
> > >>now
> > >> >> it is:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>   apache-royale-0.9.0-bin  This contains SWF support.
> > >> >>   apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0.bin
> > >> >>
> > >> >> A while back I suggested:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>   apache-royale-flexjs-0.9.0-bin  This contains SWF support.
> > >> >>   apache-royale-0.9.0.bin  The default package is JS only.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Another option is:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>   apache-royale-swf-0.9.0-bin This contains SWF support.
> > >> >>   apache-royale-0.9.0.bin  The default package is JS only.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I still think it might be valuable to have 'flexjs' in the package
> > >>name
> > >> >> for the package with SWF support.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Thoughts?
> > >> >> -Alex
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On 12/12/17, 10:18 AM, "Alex Harui" <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> >The package on the CI server aren't working with NPM.  I think I
> > >> >>messed up
> > >> >> >the Ant script.  Looking into it now.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >-Alex
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >On 12/12/17, 10:10 AM, "[email protected] on behalf of OmPrakash
> > >> >> >Muppirala" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> >>On Dec 12, 2017 8:41 AM, "Alex Harui" <[email protected]>
> > >> >>wrote:
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>On 12/12/17, 3:51 AM, "[email protected] on behalf of OmPrakash
> > >> >> >>Muppirala"
> > >> >> >><[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote:
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>>On Dec 12, 2017 12:25 AM, "Alex Harui" <[email protected]
> >
> > >> >> wrote:
> > >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >>>I just pushed changes to see if it can work.  We'll see after
> the
> > >>CI
> > >> >> >>>server builds it.  In theory, you will be able to run:
> > >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >>>    npm install
> > >> >> >>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> > >> >> http%3A%2F%2Fapachefl
> > >> >> >>>e
> > >> >> >>>x
> > >> >> >>>build.cloudapp.net%3A8080%2Fjob%2Froyale-asjs%
> > >> >> 2FlastSuccessfulBuil&data=
> > >> >> >>>0
> > >> >> >>>2
> > >> >> >>>%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5d4cb0a761544b1e6dce08d54156
> > >> >> c7cb%7Cfa7b1b5a
> > >> >> >>>7
> > >> >> >>>b
> > >> >> >>>34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636486763331683835&
> > >> >> sdata=99F1YaFJunpkbE
> > >> >> >>>E
> > >> >> >>>Z
> > >> >> >>>WSuZdiO2LJAEHAud55Tq5tx%2FYnM%3D&reserved=0
> > >> >> >>>d/artifact/out/apache-royale-jsonly-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz
> > >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >>>And it should install the JSOnlu package.  Alternatively, you
> run:
> > >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >>>    npm install
> > >> >> >>>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=
> > >> >> http%3A%2F%2Fapachefl
> > >> >> >>>e
> > >> >> >>>x
> > >> >> >>>build.cloudapp.net%3A8080%2Fjob%2Froyale-asjs%
> > >> >> 2FlastSuccessfulBuil&data=
> > >> >> >>>0
> > >> >> >>>2
> > >> >> >>>%7C01%7Caharui%40adobe.com%7C5d4cb0a761544b1e6dce08d54156
> > >> >> c7cb%7Cfa7b1b5a
> > >> >> >>>7
> > >> >> >>>b
> > >> >> >>>34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636486763331683835&
> > >> >> sdata=99F1YaFJunpkbE
> > >> >> >>>E
> > >> >> >>>Z
> > >> >> >>>WSuZdiO2LJAEHAud55Tq5tx%2FYnM%3D&reserved=0
> > >> >> >>>d/artifact/out/apache-royale-0.9.0-bin.tar.gz
> > >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >>>Does this tarball contain the Adobe dependencies as well?
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>No, it will try to download the Adobe stuff like the earlier
> > >> >>npm-flexjs
> > >> >> >>code did.  However, it only need to try to get the Adobe stuff
> > >>since
> > >> >> >>other
> > >> >> >>things it looks like it used to download are in the package
> > >> >>(framework,
> > >> >> >>falcon, swfobject).
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>Thanks,
> > >> >> >>-Alex
> > >> >> >>>
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>Sounds good.  I will start working on this today.
> > >> >> >>
> > >> >> >>Thanks,
> > >> >> >>Om
> > >> >> >
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
>

Reply via email to