Yes, it's specific to your system, so don't commit that extra <arg/>. I assume that you can add -Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf to the end of your terminal command when you run the Ant release script. I've never done a release, so that's just a guess. As far as I know, this part has not changed since the previous releases.
-- Josh Tynjala Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 12:36 AM Yishay Weiss <yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Hi Josh, > > I’m running release ant script which has > > <exec executable="${mvn}" dir="${artifactfolder}/sources" > failonerror="true" > > <arg value="clean" /> > <arg value="install" /> > <arg value="-Proyale-release,option-with-swf" /> > </exec> > > This results in > > [exec] [INFO] Installing > C:\temp2\sources\compiler-playerglobalc\target\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar > to C:\Users\yisha\.m2\repository\org\apache\royale\compile > r\compiler-playerglobalc\0.9.8\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar > [exec] [INFO] > [exec] [INFO] ----------------< org.apache.royale.compiler:compiler > >----------------- > [exec] [INFO] Building Apache Royale: Compiler: Compiler 0.9.8 > [6/13] > [exec] [INFO] --------------------------------[ jar > ]--------------------------------- > [exec] [INFO] Couldn't find artifact: > com.adobe.flash.framework:20.0:playerglobal:pom > [exec] [INFO] > =========================================================== > [exec] [INFO] - Installing Adobe Flash SDK 20.0 > [exec] SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings. > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in > [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/apache/flex/utilities/converter/flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension/1.0.0/flex-sdk-converter-m > aven-extension-1.0.0.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class] > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in > [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/slf4j/slf4j-simple/1.7.21/slf4j-simple-1.7.21.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class] > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in > [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/ch/qos/logback/logback-classic/1.1.7/logback-classic-1.1.7.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder > .class] > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in > [jar:file:/C:/dev/apache-maven-3.6.3/bin/../lib/maven-slf4j-provider-3.6.3.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class] > [exec] SLF4J: See http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#multiple_bindings > for an explanation. > [exec] SLF4J: Actual binding is of type > [org.slf4j.impl.SimpleLoggerFactory] > [exec] Your System-Id: ca4f30bf > [exec] The Adobe SDK license agreement applies to the Adobe Flash > Player playerglobal.swc. Do you want to install the Adobe Flash Player > playerglobal.swc? > [exec] (In a non-interactive build such as a CI server build, > alternatively to typing y or yes you can also set a system property > containing your system which is interpr > eted as equivalent to accepting by typing y or yes: > -Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf > ) > > Adding > > <arg > value="-Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf" > /> > > Did make the prompt go away, but I’m not sure if I can commit ca4f30bf or > if that’s specific to my system. > > Can you advise? > > Thanks. > > From: Josh Tynjala<mailto:joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev> > Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 12:39 AM > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?) > > Here's a follow-up with my progress in March. > > Last month, I had gotten airglobal.swc building, and now, I've figured out > how to exclude the AIR-only APIs and build a separate playerglobal.swc too. > I've committed playerglobal and airglobal projects to royale-typedefs. > Again, these .swc files get built from the Apache-licensed doc XML files > that Adobe donated to Apache Flex. > > I've made some changes to the builds for royale-asjs to start using these > new .swc files. Libraries build. Examples build. Tests pass. These .swc > files are working nicely. Things can still be improved, but it's a solid > start. > > Maven is using our airglobal/playerglobal for pretty much everything. You > can run `mvn clean install` at the root of royale-asjs, and it will build > all framework .swc files without requiring any Adobe artifacts. You can > also run with `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` to build a zip/tar.gz > distribution without requiring any Adobe artifacts. > > The only time that the Maven build still requires Adobe artifacts is if you > specify `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` and > `-DdistributionTargetFolder=` together. The `-DdistributionTargetFolder` > option merges in everything from the AIR SDK (not only airglobal.swc, but > also executables like adt and adl), and I assume that we still want that to > be possible, but optional. If you need a SWF distribution without Adobe > stuff, just build the zip/tar.gz version and extract it. > > I basically consider the Maven changes to be done at this point. > > Ant is using our airglobal/playerglobal in some places, but not everywhere > yet. You can run `ant` in the root of royale-asjs, and it will build all > framework .swc files without requiring Adobe artifacts. If you have > env.AIR_HOME or env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME specified, it will still use Adobe > artifacts, and I plan to keep that working for anyone who happens to prefer > that. If you don't have those environment variables set, it will use our > airglobal/playerglobal automatically. > > Building a SWF distribution with Ant still requires env.AIR_HOME and > env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME at this time. I just didn't have quite enough time > this month to finish that part. Next month, I hope to be able to modify the > Ant build to do a full release without Adobe artifacts (except you'll still > need Flash Player to run tests, of course). > > I know that there's been talk of doing a release soon. While my work is > still in progress, it's currently in a state that should not prevent a > release, if someone wants to do one. As I said, you can still specify > env.AIR_HOME and env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME, and the Ant release distribution > build with Adobe artifacts should work the same as before. > > -- > Josh Tynjala > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 3:55 PM Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev> > wrote: > > > Just an update on my progress in February to create an Apache-licensed > > playerglobal.swc. Last month, I had successfully built the SWC file using > > the Apache-licensed asdoc XML files that are in the Flex SDK, but I > hadn't > > had a chance to see if I could drop it in to replace the official Adobe > SWC > > yet. When I finally got a chance to try it this month, my SWC didn't work > > at first. However, I was able to make some tweaks to the APIs where I > > discovered that types/parameters were slightly wrong in the docs. I can > now > > successfully use the SWC to build the entire Royale framework (including > > running RoyaleUnit tests), and I can run the compiler's > > "royale.dependent.tests" integration tests too. > > > > I also cleaned up the command line API for playerglobalc to make it work > > more like other compiler tools, like mxmlc, compc, or externc. After > > getting that working, I updated the royale-maven-plugin to make it > possible > > to build the same SWC using either Maven or the command line. > > > > What I still need to do: > > > > - Build separately playerglobal.swc and airglobal.swc. AIR-only APIs > > should not appear in playerglobal.swc. > > - Test the SWC with some non-Royale projects too. Since building the > > Royale framework helped me find some APIs that were slightly wrong in the > > docs, I figure that I should test the SWC with some other projects too. I > > plan to drop the SWC into the Flex SDK, and test some apps using Flex, > > Starling, and Feathers. That should cover a wide range of APIs. If they > all > > compile and run, then I think our Apache-licensed replacement will be > > looking pretty solid. > > - Finally, I need to figure out how to integrate our new > > playerglobal.swc/airglobal.swc into the distribution builds. I'd like to > > allow anyone building the framework to continue to use SWCs from Adobe or > > Harman, if they'd prefer. > > > > -- > > Josh Tynjala > > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:16 PM Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev> > > wrote: > > > >> FYI — I just pushed a prototype playerglobal-source-gen project to the > >> royale-compiler repo. It's a command line app that can generate .as > files > >> from the Flex SDK's Apache-licensed asdoc files for playerglobal.swc. > The > >> idea is to use these generated .as files to compile our own > >> playerglobal.swc that we can distribute under the Apache license. If > Adobe > >> ever decides to remove playerglobal.swc from their website, we'll have > our > >> version available as a backup. > >> > >> I've gotten the project far enough along that I can successfully build > >> the generated .as source files into a .swc without any compiler errors. > >> However, I haven't yet had a chance to check if that .swc can be used > in an > >> SDK/distribution instead of the official playerglobal.swc or > airglobal.swc. > >> In February, when I have some more time, I'll continue testing all of > that. > >> I just wanted to share my current progress so far! > >> > >> -- > >> Josh Tynjala > >> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:34 AM Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Josh, > >>> > >>> I think that's a very good idea. As less external dependencies we have > >>> the > >>> better. And I think that means one thing less to download or manage by > >>> mavenizer. > >>> > >>> Could it be possible that you contribute it? > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> > >>> > >>> El lun, 4 ene 2021 a las 21:53, Josh Tynjala (< > joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev > >>> >) > >>> escribió: > >>> > >>> > If necessary, I believe that we can create our own custom > >>> playerglobal.swc > >>> > without running into license issues. > >>> > > >>> > Basically, the official playerglobal.swc contains only the APIs, and > no > >>> > implementation, so it's basically like the typedef/externs SWCs that > we > >>> > create for JS libraries in Royale > >>> > > >>> > The Apache Flex repo contains full ASDoc XML files for > playerglobal.swc > >>> > under an Apache license. These files should contain enough > information > >>> > about variable/property types and method signatures that someone > could > >>> > write a parser to get all of the data we need to generate AS3 stub > >>> classes > >>> > and build a SWC from that. > >>> > > >>> > -- > >>> > Josh Tynjala > >>> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 11:07 AM Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > > Let’s wait and see whether we are dealing with real issues or not. > If > >>> > it’s > >>> > > an issue we can debate solutions. > >>> > > > >>> > > I’m happy to ask my Adobe contacts what the plan is. > >>> > > > >>> > > > On Jan 3, 2021, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Rovira < > carlosrov...@apache.org > >>> > > >>> > > wrote: > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Hi Harbs, > >>> > > > > >>> > > > the problem here's that I think we are on Apache, and using a > >>> piece of > >>> > > > software that is under a clear license use will be against the > >>> > foundation > >>> > > > rules. So although you or I can host the files, that's not seem > to > >>> me > >>> > > like > >>> > > > a solution to the real problem. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > I'm for go step by step and first try to talk with Adobe > >>> > representatives > >>> > > to > >>> > > > get the permission for Apache to host the player files only for > our > >>> > flex > >>> > > > and royale use cases. I think we could continue discussion after > we > >>> > know > >>> > > > the solution to this request > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Can you, Alex or others do this request? or if you want I can do > >>> it, > >>> > but > >>> > > > need someone to provide me the contact at adobe. > >>> > > > > >>> > > > Thanks > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 15:59, Harbs (<harbs.li...@gmail.com>) > >>> > > escribió: > >>> > > > > >>> > > >> There’s no license agreement when downloading playerglobal or > the > >>> > > content > >>> > > >> debugger. > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> I’m willing to take the risk to personally host these files if > >>> > > necessary. > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >>> On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Christofer Dutz < > >>> > christofer.d...@c-ware.de > >>> > > > > >>> > > >> wrote: > >>> > > >>> > >>> > > >>> And I doubt we would be allowed to simply upload Adobe stuff to > >>> any > >>> > > >> other server wirhout explicit conset from them. The license > >>> agreement > >>> > > you > >>> > > >> agreed to when downloading explicitly forbids that (at least it > >>> did, > >>> > > wenn > >>> > > >> we were working on the Flex Mavenizer and I doubt things > changed) > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > > > >>> > > > -- > >>> > > > Carlos Rovira > >>> > > > Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC > >>> > > > *Apache Software Foundation* > >>> > > > http://about.me/carlosrovira > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Carlos Rovira > >>> Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC > >>> *Apache Software Foundation* > >>> http://about.me/carlosrovira > >>> > >> > >
