RE: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2
Hold on, I've still have the minor (?) issues: - The tool bar for some steps goes beyond its container limits. - I've tried twice to download the nightly FlexJS SDK and had Error #3003: File or directory does not exist, actually D:\SDKs\FlexJS\nightly_PF16.0_AIR16.0_en_US\js\lib\google\closure-compiler\compiler.jar is not there, is that a minor temp issue ? main: copyfiles: [copy] Copying 0 files to D:\SDKs\FlexJS\nightly_PF16.0_AIR16.0_en_US/ant/lib [copy] Copying 14 files to D:\SDKs\FlexJS\nightly_PF16.0_AIR16.0_en_US/bin bin-legacy: [copy] Copying 11 files to D:\SDKs\FlexJS\nightly_PF16.0_AIR16.0_en_US/lib [copy] Copying 1 file to D:\SDKs\FlexJS\nightly_PF16.0_AIR16.0_en_US\lib\mxmlc.jar [copy] Copying 15 files to D:\SDKs\FlexJS\nightly_PF16.0_AIR16.0_en_US/lib/external copy.jx.lib: [mkdir] Created directory D:\SDKs\FlexJS\nightly_PF16.0_AIR16.0_en_US\js\lib\google\closure-compiler [copy] Copying 1 file to D:\SDKs\FlexJS\nightly_PF16.0_AIR16.0_en_US\js\lib\google\closure-compiler\compiler.jar Error #3003 Frédéric THOMAS From: aha...@adobe.com To: webdoubl...@hotmail.com; dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2 Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 15:14:25 + I think enough folks have examined the source but it would be good to know that it works in other countries Sent from my LG G3, an ATT 4G LTE smartphone -- Original message-- From: Frédéric THOMAS Date: Mon, Jun 22, 2015 7:25 AM To: dev@flex.apache.org; Subject:RE: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2 You're right. Let's count the votes and move on. I was about to dedicate some time to test it but if you have already enough votes, I'm fine with :-) Thanks, Frédéric THOMAS Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 15:58:04 +0200 Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2 From: e...@ixsoftware.nl To: dev@flex.apache.org Alex, You're right. Let's count the votes and move on. Contributions in the form of actual patches or even constructive comments are always welcome and will certainly be part of the next release (which everyone is free to create and put to a vote, btw). Just let's not let them interfere with the momentum the project has been having lately. Thank you for shepherding this release! EdB On Monday, June 22, 2015, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: On 6/22/15, 1:03 AM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com javascript:; wrote: Hi, You suggested change corrects one the issues. The other one is you can set AIR_HOME to a 4.0 SDK, but if FLEX_HOME contains an air version other than 4.0 it will fail to compile. It will still fail to compile if you change the namespace. And since it is a minor change, we wouldn't need another round of voting for this change or we could simply carry the current votes forward. Fine by me. I don’t think anyone would have an issue to carry votes forward for just a read me change. Don’t get me wrong: making it easier to compile the source package is a legitimate issue. But what I don’t get is why it helps the community more to focus time and effort on another RC vs taking the same time and effort on moving, for example, FlexJS further along. How does expending energy on this issue help the community more, or put the foundation at risk, or encourage participation instead of scaring away potential future release managers. Why is delaying the release for this issue more important than having N more people experience installation failures because they don’t have their IE settings right? I’m all for someone taking the time to upgrade the build script to update the -app.xml to maybe pull the namespace number from, maybe, flex-sdk-description.xml so it always uses what folks have in their SDK. And then that will go in a future release. IMO, folks who feel strongly about this issue should go work on that. I want to get this release out so we can see if our failure rate changes significantly, and try to create new markets for Flex with FlexJS. Thanks, -Alex -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nlhttp://www.ixsoftware.nl
RE: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2
I've still have the minor (?) issues: Just to be clear, I ran the installer from the build done from the source kit and had no issues in installing the Flex SDK itself, only FlexJS, that's why I don't know it I have to attribute the issue to the Installer or FlexJS. For the tool bar, it is minor IMO even though that looks not pro (especially from us). Frédéric THOMAS From: webdoubl...@hotmail.com To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2 Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 16:19:15 +0100 Hold on, I've still have the minor (?) issues: - The tool bar for some steps goes beyond its container limits. - I've tried twice to download the nightly FlexJS SDK and had Error #3003: File or directory does not exist, actually D:\SDKs\FlexJS\nightly_PF16.0_AIR16.0_en_US\js\lib\google\closure-compiler\compiler.jar is not there, is that a minor temp issue ? main: copyfiles: [copy] Copying 0 files to D:\SDKs\FlexJS\nightly_PF16.0_AIR16.0_en_US/ant/lib [copy] Copying 14 files to D:\SDKs\FlexJS\nightly_PF16.0_AIR16.0_en_US/bin bin-legacy: [copy] Copying 11 files to D:\SDKs\FlexJS\nightly_PF16.0_AIR16.0_en_US/lib [copy] Copying 1 file to D:\SDKs\FlexJS\nightly_PF16.0_AIR16.0_en_US\lib\mxmlc.jar [copy] Copying 15 files to D:\SDKs\FlexJS\nightly_PF16.0_AIR16.0_en_US/lib/external copy.jx.lib: [mkdir] Created directory D:\SDKs\FlexJS\nightly_PF16.0_AIR16.0_en_US\js\lib\google\closure-compiler [copy] Copying 1 file to D:\SDKs\FlexJS\nightly_PF16.0_AIR16.0_en_US\js\lib\google\closure-compiler\compiler.jar Error #3003 Frédéric THOMAS From: aha...@adobe.com To: webdoubl...@hotmail.com; dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2 Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 15:14:25 + I think enough folks have examined the source but it would be good to know that it works in other countries Sent from my LG G3, an ATT 4G LTE smartphone -- Original message-- From: Frédéric THOMAS Date: Mon, Jun 22, 2015 7:25 AM To: dev@flex.apache.org; Subject:RE: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2 You're right. Let's count the votes and move on. I was about to dedicate some time to test it but if you have already enough votes, I'm fine with :-) Thanks, Frédéric THOMAS Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 15:58:04 +0200 Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2 From: e...@ixsoftware.nl To: dev@flex.apache.org Alex, You're right. Let's count the votes and move on. Contributions in the form of actual patches or even constructive comments are always welcome and will certainly be part of the next release (which everyone is free to create and put to a vote, btw). Just let's not let them interfere with the momentum the project has been having lately. Thank you for shepherding this release! EdB On Monday, June 22, 2015, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: On 6/22/15, 1:03 AM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com javascript:; wrote: Hi, You suggested change corrects one the issues. The other one is you can set AIR_HOME to a 4.0 SDK, but if FLEX_HOME contains an air version other than 4.0 it will fail to compile. It will still fail to compile if you change the namespace. And since it is a minor change, we wouldn't need another round of voting for this change or we could simply carry the current votes forward. Fine by me. I don’t think anyone would have an issue to carry votes forward for just a read me change. Don’t get me wrong: making it easier to compile the source package is a legitimate issue. But what I don’t get is why it helps the community more to focus time and effort on another RC vs taking the same time and effort on moving, for example, FlexJS further along. How does expending energy on this issue help the community more, or put the foundation at risk, or encourage participation instead of scaring away potential future release managers. Why is delaying the release for this issue more important than having N more people experience installation failures because they don’t have their IE settings right? I’m all for someone taking the time to upgrade the build script to update the -app.xml to maybe pull the namespace number from, maybe, flex-sdk-description.xml so it always uses what folks have in their SDK. And then that will go in a future release. IMO, folks who feel strongly about this issue should go work on that. I want to get this release out so we can see if our failure rate changes significantly, and try to create new markets for Flex with FlexJS. Thanks, -Alex -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nlhttp://www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2
Hi, I also get a 3003 with FlexJS when running the binary. The same URL works correctly when used in a browser. http://search.maven.org/remotecontent?filepath=org/apache/flex/flex-tool-api/1.0.0/flex-tool-api-1.0.0.jar Here’s the log: Installer version 3.2.0 (mac) Using Locale: en_AU Fetched the SDK download mirror URL from the CGI. SDK version Apache FlexJS Nightly AIR version 16.0 Flash Player version 16.0 Creating Apache FlexJS home Creating temporary directory Downloading Apache FlexJS from:http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-asjs/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/out/apache-flex-flexjs-0.0.3-bin.tar.gz Verifying Apache FlexJS MD5 Signature The Apache FlexJS MD5 Signature of the downloaded files matches the reference. The file is valid. Unzipping: /Users/justinmclean/Documents/ApacheFlexJSTest/temp/apache-flex-flexjs-0.0.3-bin.tar.gz Finished unzipping: /Users/justinmclean/Documents/ApacheFlexJSTest/temp/apache-flex-flexjs-0.0.3-bin.tar.gz Java is /usr/bin/java Installing Apache Flex Falcon Compiler from: http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080/job/flex-falcon/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/out/apache-flex-falconjx-0.0.3-bin.zip Validating download: /Users/justinmclean/Documents/ApacheFlexJSTest/in/apache-flex-falconjx-0.0.3-bin.zip Uncompressing: /Users/justinmclean/Documents/ApacheFlexJSTest/in/apache-flex-falconjx-0.0.3-bin.zip Downloading Falcon library dependencies... Making lib directory /Users/justinmclean/Documents/ApacheFlexJSTest/in/falcon/compiler/lib Downloading org/antlr/antlr-complete/3.5.2/antlr-complete-3.5.2.jar from: http://search.maven.org/remotecontent?filepath= Downloading dist/commons/cli/binaries/commons-cli-1.2-bin.tar.gz from: http://archive.apache.org Downloading dist/commons/io/binaries/commons-io-2.4-bin.tar.gz from: http://archive.apache.org Downloading com/google/guava/guava/17.0/guava-17.0.jar from: http://search.maven.org/remotecontent?filepath= Downloading job/flex-falcon/ws/compiler/lib/jburg.jar from: http://apacheflexbuild.cloudapp.net:8080 Downloading ./jflex-1.6.0.tar.gz from: http://jflex.de Downloading Code/JarDownload/lzma/lzma-9.20.jar.zip from: http://www.java2s.com Downloading org/apache/flex/flex-tool-api/1.0.0/flex-tool-api-1.0.0.jar from: http://search.maven.org/remotecontent?filepath= Error #3003 Error: Error #3003 at org.apache.flex.ant.tags::Copy/doCopy() at org.apache.flex.ant::Ant/doCallback() at InstallApacheFlex/enterFrameHandler() Aborting Installation Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2
I think enough folks have examined the source but it would be good to know that it works in other countries Sent from my LG G3, an ATT 4G LTE smartphone -- Original message-- From: Frédéric THOMAS Date: Mon, Jun 22, 2015 7:25 AM To: dev@flex.apache.org; Subject:RE: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2 You're right. Let's count the votes and move on. I was about to dedicate some time to test it but if you have already enough votes, I'm fine with :-) Thanks, Frédéric THOMAS Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 15:58:04 +0200 Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2 From: e...@ixsoftware.nl To: dev@flex.apache.org Alex, You're right. Let's count the votes and move on. Contributions in the form of actual patches or even constructive comments are always welcome and will certainly be part of the next release (which everyone is free to create and put to a vote, btw). Just let's not let them interfere with the momentum the project has been having lately. Thank you for shepherding this release! EdB On Monday, June 22, 2015, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: On 6/22/15, 1:03 AM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com javascript:; wrote: Hi, You suggested change corrects one the issues. The other one is you can set AIR_HOME to a 4.0 SDK, but if FLEX_HOME contains an air version other than 4.0 it will fail to compile. It will still fail to compile if you change the namespace. And since it is a minor change, we wouldn't need another round of voting for this change or we could simply carry the current votes forward. Fine by me. I don’t think anyone would have an issue to carry votes forward for just a read me change. Don’t get me wrong: making it easier to compile the source package is a legitimate issue. But what I don’t get is why it helps the community more to focus time and effort on another RC vs taking the same time and effort on moving, for example, FlexJS further along. How does expending energy on this issue help the community more, or put the foundation at risk, or encourage participation instead of scaring away potential future release managers. Why is delaying the release for this issue more important than having N more people experience installation failures because they don’t have their IE settings right? I’m all for someone taking the time to upgrade the build script to update the -app.xml to maybe pull the namespace number from, maybe, flex-sdk-description.xml so it always uses what folks have in their SDK. And then that will go in a future release. IMO, folks who feel strongly about this issue should go work on that. I want to get this release out so we can see if our failure rate changes significantly, and try to create new markets for Flex with FlexJS. Thanks, -Alex -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nlhttp://www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2
On 6/22/15, 8:35 AM, Frédéric THOMAS webdoubl...@hotmail.com wrote: I've still have the minor (?) issues: Just to be clear, I ran the installer from the build done from the source kit and had no issues in installing the Flex SDK itself, only FlexJS, that's why I don't know it I have to attribute the issue to the Installer or FlexJS. For the tool bar, it is minor IMO even though that looks not pro (especially from us). The compiler.jar issue is a Falcon installer.xml issue. I just pushed a quick fix. That issue is independent of the Installer itself. For the toolbar, how many squares do you have? -Alex
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2
Hi, I could be wrong, but I thought the Installer let you pick any version of AIR to mix with any version of Apache Flex. It does but it won’t currently default to the required one for the installer. As I said in a recent reply, you can probably just set -target-player or -swf-version. Probably best to add to README and currently most people following those instructions would be unable to compile the installer. See under How to build the installer using ANT”, adding which version of Flex SDK is required and/or stating that the FLEX SDK also needs AIR 4.0 would help. The steps under How to set up the project for working with Adobe Flash Builder 4.7” and How to set up the project for working with JetBrains IDEA 12+ are also probably a little broken as they don’t mention the new libraries, but I’ve not tried following those instructions. Doesn’t matter to me. In order to vote +1 you need to be able to compile the application from source following the given instructions, the instructions have room for improvements. Would have been a good thing to try before we cut the RC. The previous RC didn’t compile so I (and I presume others) were unable to test this. I’m not sure how many folks are going to build their installer from source anyway. In order to be a valid release it need to follow this ([1]), note the compile it as provided”, if I can’t compile as provided I not able to vote +1. Before voting +1 PMC members are required to download the signed source code package, compile it as provided, and test the resulting executable on their own platform, along with also verifying that the package meets the requirements of the ASF policy on releases. Thanks, Justin 1. http://www.apache.org/dev/release.html#approving-a-release
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2
On 6/21/15, 11:05 PM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: Would have been a good thing to try before we cut the RC. The previous RC didn’t compile so I (and I presume others) were unable to test this. Sounds like you are still unclear on how the release process is supposed to work. I’m not sure how many folks are going to build their installer from source anyway. In order to be a valid release it need to follow this ([1]), note the compile it as provided”, if I can’t compile as provided I not able to vote +1. Before voting +1 PMC members are required to download the signed source code package, compile it as provided, and test the resulting executable on their own platform, along with also verifying that the package meets the requirements of the ASF policy on releases. It isn’t provided with an AIR SDK. Pick one that works and you’ll be all set. -Alex
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2
The README already says: 0. Make sure you have the right version of the Adobe AIR SDK. Apache Flex Installer 3.1 uses Adobe AIR SDK 4.0. If you want to use an older version of the AIR SDK, you will have to change the namespace in the following files: installer/src/InstallApacheFlex-app.xml ant_on_air/tests/AntOnAIR-app.xml. I think if we change it to: 0. Make sure you have the right version of the Adobe AIR SDK. Apache Flex Installer 3.1 uses Adobe AIR SDK 4.0. If you want to use *a different* version of the AIR SDK, you will have to change the namespace in the following files: installer/src/InstallApacheFlex-app.xml ant_on_air/tests/AntOnAIR-app.xml. And since it is a minor change, we wouldn't need another round of voting for this change or we could simply carry the current votes forward. Thanks, Om On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 11:39 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: On 6/21/15, 11:05 PM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: Would have been a good thing to try before we cut the RC. The previous RC didn’t compile so I (and I presume others) were unable to test this. Sounds like you are still unclear on how the release process is supposed to work. I’m not sure how many folks are going to build their installer from source anyway. In order to be a valid release it need to follow this ([1]), note the compile it as provided”, if I can’t compile as provided I not able to vote +1. Before voting +1 PMC members are required to download the signed source code package, compile it as provided, and test the resulting executable on their own platform, along with also verifying that the package meets the requirements of the ASF policy on releases. It isn’t provided with an AIR SDK. Pick one that works and you’ll be all set. -Alex
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2
Hi, You suggested change corrects one the issues. The other one is you can set AIR_HOME to a 4.0 SDK, but if FLEX_HOME contains an air version other than 4.0 it will fail to compile. It will still fail to compile if you change the namespace. And since it is a minor change, we wouldn't need another round of voting for this change or we could simply carry the current votes forward. Fine by me. I don’t think anyone would have an issue to carry votes forward for just a read me change. Thanks, Justin
RE: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2
I will be able to review this rc2 tonight (which is half a day away at this time). -Mark
Re : Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2
Difficult to say it was quick but I guess it was for the uncompress tasks or the tasks around of them. --- Message initial --- De : Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com Envoyé : 22 juin 2015 19:22 A : dev@flex.apache.org Objet : Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2 On 6/22/15, 8:35 AM, Frédéric THOMAS webdoubl...@hotmail.com wrote: I've still have the minor (?) issues: Just to be clear, I ran the installer from the build done from the source kit and had no issues in installing the Flex SDK itself, only FlexJS, that's why I don't know it I have to attribute the issue to the Installer or FlexJS. For the tool bar, it is minor IMO even though that looks not pro (especially from us). The compiler.jar issue is a Falcon installer.xml issue. I just pushed a quick fix. That issue is independent of the Installer itself. For the toolbar, how many squares do you have? -Alex
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2
Had an issue building from source using readme. Step 2 worked: 2. In the ant_on_air directory, run: ant [-DFLEX_HOME=/path/to/apache/flex/sdk] [-DAIR_HOME=/path/to/air/sdk] Step 3 failed here for me. 3. In the installer directory, run: ant build [-DFLEX_HOME=/path/to/apache/flex/sdk] [-DAIR_HOME=/path/to/air/sdk] Did not have a build file in that directory. Had to go back to the root of the folder and build from there. Build was successful from the root at that point. Other than that it seemed to be fine. -Mark
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2
On 6/22/15, 1:03 AM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: Hi, You suggested change corrects one the issues. The other one is you can set AIR_HOME to a 4.0 SDK, but if FLEX_HOME contains an air version other than 4.0 it will fail to compile. It will still fail to compile if you change the namespace. And since it is a minor change, we wouldn't need another round of voting for this change or we could simply carry the current votes forward. Fine by me. I don’t think anyone would have an issue to carry votes forward for just a read me change. Don’t get me wrong: making it easier to compile the source package is a legitimate issue. But what I don’t get is why it helps the community more to focus time and effort on another RC vs taking the same time and effort on moving, for example, FlexJS further along. How does expending energy on this issue help the community more, or put the foundation at risk, or encourage participation instead of scaring away potential future release managers. Why is delaying the release for this issue more important than having N more people experience installation failures because they don’t have their IE settings right? I’m all for someone taking the time to upgrade the build script to update the -app.xml to maybe pull the namespace number from, maybe, flex-sdk-description.xml so it always uses what folks have in their SDK. And then that will go in a future release. IMO, folks who feel strongly about this issue should go work on that. I want to get this release out so we can see if our failure rate changes significantly, and try to create new markets for Flex with FlexJS. Thanks, -Alex
RE: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2
You're right. Let's count the votes and move on. I was about to dedicate some time to test it but if you have already enough votes, I'm fine with :-) Thanks, Frédéric THOMAS Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 15:58:04 +0200 Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2 From: e...@ixsoftware.nl To: dev@flex.apache.org Alex, You're right. Let's count the votes and move on. Contributions in the form of actual patches or even constructive comments are always welcome and will certainly be part of the next release (which everyone is free to create and put to a vote, btw). Just let's not let them interfere with the momentum the project has been having lately. Thank you for shepherding this release! EdB On Monday, June 22, 2015, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: On 6/22/15, 1:03 AM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com javascript:; wrote: Hi, You suggested change corrects one the issues. The other one is you can set AIR_HOME to a 4.0 SDK, but if FLEX_HOME contains an air version other than 4.0 it will fail to compile. It will still fail to compile if you change the namespace. And since it is a minor change, we wouldn't need another round of voting for this change or we could simply carry the current votes forward. Fine by me. I don’t think anyone would have an issue to carry votes forward for just a read me change. Don’t get me wrong: making it easier to compile the source package is a legitimate issue. But what I don’t get is why it helps the community more to focus time and effort on another RC vs taking the same time and effort on moving, for example, FlexJS further along. How does expending energy on this issue help the community more, or put the foundation at risk, or encourage participation instead of scaring away potential future release managers. Why is delaying the release for this issue more important than having N more people experience installation failures because they don’t have their IE settings right? I’m all for someone taking the time to upgrade the build script to update the -app.xml to maybe pull the namespace number from, maybe, flex-sdk-description.xml so it always uses what folks have in their SDK. And then that will go in a future release. IMO, folks who feel strongly about this issue should go work on that. I want to get this release out so we can see if our failure rate changes significantly, and try to create new markets for Flex with FlexJS. Thanks, -Alex -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2
Alex, You're right. Let's count the votes and move on. Contributions in the form of actual patches or even constructive comments are always welcome and will certainly be part of the next release (which everyone is free to create and put to a vote, btw). Just let's not let them interfere with the momentum the project has been having lately. Thank you for shepherding this release! EdB On Monday, June 22, 2015, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: On 6/22/15, 1:03 AM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com javascript:; wrote: Hi, You suggested change corrects one the issues. The other one is you can set AIR_HOME to a 4.0 SDK, but if FLEX_HOME contains an air version other than 4.0 it will fail to compile. It will still fail to compile if you change the namespace. And since it is a minor change, we wouldn't need another round of voting for this change or we could simply carry the current votes forward. Fine by me. I don’t think anyone would have an issue to carry votes forward for just a read me change. Don’t get me wrong: making it easier to compile the source package is a legitimate issue. But what I don’t get is why it helps the community more to focus time and effort on another RC vs taking the same time and effort on moving, for example, FlexJS further along. How does expending energy on this issue help the community more, or put the foundation at risk, or encourage participation instead of scaring away potential future release managers. Why is delaying the release for this issue more important than having N more people experience installation failures because they don’t have their IE settings right? I’m all for someone taking the time to upgrade the build script to update the -app.xml to maybe pull the namespace number from, maybe, flex-sdk-description.xml so it always uses what folks have in their SDK. And then that will go in a future release. IMO, folks who feel strongly about this issue should go work on that. I want to get this release out so we can see if our failure rate changes significantly, and try to create new markets for Flex with FlexJS. Thanks, -Alex -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2
Alex, I'm very sorry for the delay in my repsonse, but this time I get: /Users/erik/Desktop/flex/apache-flex-sdk-installer-3.2.0-src/installer/src/InstallApacheFlex-app.xml: error 305: Intial window content SWF version 28 exceeds namespace version http://ns.adobe.com/air/application/4.0 when running the approve script. I want to help out, but I'm rusty and don't have the cycles to go Googling what I'm doing wrong... What am I missing? EdB On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: Ah yes, I should have been more clear. This issue should be fixed as well by the official hash for this RC: 779907321df67042d80349d2a458b2db482deb35 -Alex On 6/18/15, 11:55 PM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: Hi, With the previous both FlexJS and 4.14.1 SDK failed to install for me, has that been fixed or is it the same with this RC / just my problem? Thanks, Justin -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2
On 6/21/15, 9:43 PM, Justin Mclean justinmcl...@me.com wrote: Hi, If you install some version of Apache Flex with AIR newer than 4.0 then you will probably have this problem. So you’re saying this will only work if you have a default Apache Flex 4.11 or below installed? If you have 4.12, 4.13 or 4.14 default installs it won’t work? I could be wrong, but I thought the Installer let you pick any version of AIR to mix with any version of Apache Flex. You would also have to select an older version of AIR when installing the SDK and it currently defaults to a more recent one with older versions of the SDK. As I said in a recent reply, you can probably just set -target-player or -swf-version. Any reason why wouldn't we want to use the latest version? Doesn’t matter to me. Would have been a good thing to try before we cut the RC. Folks are supposed to check stuff like this out before we start making official RC’s. At least, I think that’s the process the PMC agreed upon. I’m not sure how many folks are going to build their installer from source anyway. -Alex
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2
HI, The Installer is just like any other AIR app. You need to adjust the xml to whatever version of AIR you are using. Except that doesn't work if you try to compile it with AIR 4.0 and your Flex SDK has another version AIR. Why do we have an AIR_HOME variable if in one place it using the air version contained in FLEX_HOME? Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2
Hi, I’m allso unable to compile from source. Tied various versions for AIR_HOME. Setting to a a recent version of AIR give this: error 305: Intial window content SWF version 27 exceeds namespace version http://ns.adobe.com/air/application/4.0 Setting to the AIR 4.0 (the namespace mentioned above gives) also this error. Physically changing the name space in the config file [1] to be 18.0 rather than 4.0 and pointing AIR_HOME at AIR 18 SDK and It will compile. My guess is that one of the new swcs has been compiled with a version of AIR 4.0. Look like it need to be recompiled with AIR 4.0 and/or the README changed. What version of AIR do you think we should be targeting? Thanks, Justin 1. apache-flex-sdk-installer-3.2.0-src/installer/src/InstallApacheFlex-app.xml
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2
The -app.xml uses AIR 4.0. AFAIK, SWCs do not have their SWF version carried over into the final SWF. If you install some version of Apache Flex with AIR newer than 4.0 then you will probably have this problem. -Alex On 6/21/15, 8:45 PM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: Hi, I’m allso unable to compile from source. Tied various versions for AIR_HOME. Setting to a a recent version of AIR give this: error 305: Intial window content SWF version 27 exceeds namespace version http://ns.adobe.com/air/application/4.0 Setting to the AIR 4.0 (the namespace mentioned above gives) also this error. Physically changing the name space in the config file [1] to be 18.0 rather than 4.0 and pointing AIR_HOME at AIR 18 SDK and It will compile. My guess is that one of the new swcs has been compiled with a version of AIR 4.0. Look like it need to be recompiled with AIR 4.0 and/or the README changed. What version of AIR do you think we should be targeting? Thanks, Justin 1. apache-flex-sdk-installer-3.2.0-src/installer/src/InstallApacheFlex-app.xm l
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2
Hi, If you install some version of Apache Flex with AIR newer than 4.0 then you will probably have this problem. So you’re saying this will only work if you have a default Apache Flex 4.11 or below installed? If you have 4.12, 4.13 or 4.14 default installs it won’t work? You would also have to select an older version of AIR when installing the SDK and it currently defaults to a more recent one with older versions of the SDK. Any reason why wouldn't we want to use the latest version? Thanks, Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Justin Mclean justinmcl...@me.com wrote: Hi, If you install some version of Apache Flex with AIR newer than 4.0 then you will probably have this problem. So you’re saying this will only work if you have a default Apache Flex 4.11 or below installed? If you have 4.12, 4.13 or 4.14 default installs it won’t work? You would also have to select an older version of AIR when installing the SDK and it currently defaults to a more recent one with older versions of the SDK. Any reason why wouldn't we want to use the latest version? The Installer is just like any other AIR app. You need to adjust the xml to whatever version of AIR you are using. If you pick a version and things look broken, we should certainly discuss it. Otherwise, I don't see an issue here. Thanks, Om Thanks, Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2
BTW, I think you can add -swf-version=23 and/or -target-player=12.0 -Alex On 6/21/15, 7:51 AM, Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl wrote: Alex, I'm very sorry for the delay in my repsonse, but this time I get: /Users/erik/Desktop/flex/apache-flex-sdk-installer-3.2.0-src/installer/src /InstallApacheFlex-app.xml: error 305: Intial window content SWF version 28 exceeds namespace version http://ns.adobe.com/air/application/4.0 when running the approve script. I want to help out, but I'm rusty and don't have the cycles to go Googling what I'm doing wrong... What am I missing? EdB On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: Ah yes, I should have been more clear. This issue should be fixed as well by the official hash for this RC: 779907321df67042d80349d2a458b2db482deb35 -Alex On 6/18/15, 11:55 PM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: Hi, With the previous both FlexJS and 4.14.1 SDK failed to install for me, has that been fixed or is it the same with this RC / just my problem? Thanks, Justin -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2
On 6/21/15, 10:21 PM, Justin Mclean justinmcl...@me.com wrote: Why do we have an AIR_HOME variable if in one place it using the air version contained in FLEX_HOME? Because we don’t want to mingle the AIR SDK files with the files from the Apache Flex repo. And it should allow you to easily switch which AIR SDK you use by pointing AIR_HOME at different versions of the AIR SDK when you compile against the repo. Compiling against an IDE-compatible Apache Flex SDK is a different story because it does mingle the AIR SDK files. -Alex
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2
Hi, With the previous both FlexJS and 4.14.1 SDK failed to install for me, has that been fixed or is it the same with this RC / just my problem? Thanks, Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
Hi, It sounded like we’d burn credits if we sign an RC and then have to sign a subsequent RC if the first RC doesn’t get approved by our PMC. As far as I’m aware there’s a test process which costs nothing, and it also costs if we (Apache as a whole) don’t use it. So I think we finish up the usual process then get it signed. That sounds possible, but I’m not sure how we would show that the binaries are the some ones or if it would require another VOTE. Thanks, Justin
[DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2
This is the discussion thread. Changes in this RC include: -moved a bunch of files out of the installer folder up to the top-level so that the file structure of the source package better matches the repo. This reduces the chances that the repo build will work but the source package build will not. -made sure to use Nick¹s version of as3httpclientlib. -CONTRIBUTORS and CONTRIBUTING files -Several changes to the other ³all-caps² files So, no changes to our source code logic, but the build script changed as I moved files sopackaging could have errors and we changed 3rd party libraries. Thanks, Alex Harui
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC2
Ah yes, I should have been more clear. This issue should be fixed as well by the official hash for this RC: 779907321df67042d80349d2a458b2db482deb35 -Alex On 6/18/15, 11:55 PM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: Hi, With the previous both FlexJS and 4.14.1 SDK failed to install for me, has that been fixed or is it the same with this RC / just my problem? Thanks, Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
On 6/19/15, 12:16 AM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: Hi, It sounded like we’d burn credits if we sign an RC and then have to sign a subsequent RC if the first RC doesn’t get approved by our PMC. As far as I’m aware there’s a test process which costs nothing, and it also costs if we (Apache as a whole) don’t use it. So I think we finish up the usual process then get it signed. That sounds possible, but I’m not sure how we would show that the binaries are the some ones or if it would require another VOTE. Our binaries have MD5 hashes. Anyway, I have no objection to you or somebody taking the next steps with Infra to find out more explicitly what our next steps are. It just isn’t clear to me that this signing needs to be done before release approval. -Alex
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
HI, Heres the info from infra: https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/code_signing_service_now_available https://blogs.apache.org/infra/entry/code_signing_service_now_available Thanks, Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
HI, Which AIR/FP versions are offered is independent of the release. That is managed in a data file on flex.a.o. Understand but users would expect a new release to support the recently releases FP 18/AIR 18 would they not? What did you mean in your other post about signing the app? It is theoretically signed by some certificate Om created. The app could be signed to make the user install process much simpler. This signing is separate to signing the air application. See: https://support.apple.com/kb/PH18657?locale=en_US https://support.apple.com/kb/PH18657?locale=en_US https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee619725(v=ws.10).aspx https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee619725(v=ws.10).aspx Thanks, Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
Hi, Yes, because someone asked about it a while ago separate from this release. Please don’t mix work that folks besides the RM can do with what needs to be done to finish the release. Yep it’s not a release blocker and it is separate from the release. Last time Om, Greg and myself all tried to get a new FP version working and were unable to. You were able to fix it. Being full time on this project means you probably have a bit more bandwidth as well. All volunteers are of course free to work on what what they want, scratch your own itch and all that. If someone wants to take on signing the binary, that’s fine with me. If you want to make the next RC and then give me the binaries before putting them up I’ll give it a go, unless someone else wants to? I am getting on a plane in 24 hours and will be at a conference next week which might reduce my involvement a little. Thanks, Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
On 6/18/15, 5:21 PM, Justin Mclean justinmcl...@me.com wrote: HI, Which AIR/FP versions are offered is independent of the release. That is managed in a data file on flex.a.o. Understand but users would expect a new release to support the recently releases FP 18/AIR 18 would they not? Yes, because someone asked about it a while ago separate from this release. Please don’t mix work that folks besides the RM can do with what needs to be done to finish the release. What did you mean in your other post about signing the app? It is theoretically signed by some certificate Om created. The app could be signed to make the user install process much simpler. This signing is separate to signing the air application. If someone wants to take on signing the binary, that’s fine with me. -Alex
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
On 6/18/15, 6:41 PM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: If someone wants to take on signing the binary, that’s fine with me. If you want to make the next RC and then give me the binaries before putting them up I’ll give it a go, unless someone else wants to? I am getting on a plane in 24 hours and will be at a conference next week which might reduce my involvement a little. My takeaway from the blog article is that we sign the binary we approve for distribution. It sounded like we’d burn credits if we sign an RC and then have to sign a subsequent RC if the first RC doesn’t get approved by our PMC. So I think we finish up the usual process then get it signed. I think it said a JIRA needs to be filed to get a certificate. I don’t know if a PMC discussion has to happen first, but feel free to get that started. -Alex
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
On 6/18/15, 1:50 AM, Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl wrote: Anyone else seeing this or have I done something wrong? I reported this about an hour ago. Well, so much for the less-RC process. I’ll roll out another RC in about 9 hours. -Alex
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
On 6/18/15, 2:12 PM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: HI, Well, so much for the less-RC process. I’ll roll out another RC in about 9 hours. You might want to allow more time for any other feedback and hopefully reduce the need for further RCs. How much longer should we wait? Anybody else planning to test RC1? BTW the binary in the source was found via rat perhaps the release process needs to be updated? While the approval script can save people time it may not catch everything so it generally a good idea for the RM to run rat manually. The approval script did catch it. -Alex
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
HI, Well, so much for the less-RC process. I’ll roll out another RC in about 9 hours. You might want to allow more time for any other feedback and hopefully reduce the need for further RCs. BTW the binary in the source was found via rat perhaps the release process needs to be updated? While the approval script can save people time it may not catch everything so it generally a good idea for the RM to run rat manually. Thanks, Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
Hi, How much longer should we wait? Anybody else planning to test RC1? I would assume other people are.. I’ve still not reviewed the release in detail or even got to running the installer yet. It’s been under 24 hours so there may even be people who don’t even know we have a release to vote on. Thanks, Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
On 6/18/15, 2:31 PM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: Hi, How much longer should we wait? Anybody else planning to test RC1? I would assume other people are.. I’ve still not reviewed the release in detail or even got to running the installer yet. It’s been under 24 hours so there may even be people who don’t even know we have a release to vote on. Theoretically, before I cut RC1, folks were supposed to review the packages in detail. I’ll probably still cut an RC2 tonight because I had to make enough changes to where some files live and the build script that packages them that people might be wasting time reviewing the RC1 packages. -Alex
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
Hi, I’ll probably still cut an RC2 tonight because I had to make enough changes to where some files live and the build script that packages them that people might be wasting time reviewing the RC1 packages. That may be some other issues that need looking into before making a RC2 (see my vote email just posted). In particular from in testing SDK 4.14.1 and FlexJS 0.02 times out on the first step, also having FP/AIR 18 is also probably a good thing. I was unable to get a beta/non beta version working last time, you mind looking into that? Thanks, Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
On 6/18/15, 4:48 PM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: Hi, I’ll probably still cut an RC2 tonight because I had to make enough changes to where some files live and the build script that packages them that people might be wasting time reviewing the RC1 packages. That may be some other issues that need looking into before making a RC2 (see my vote email just posted). In particular from in testing SDK 4.14.1 and FlexJS 0.02 times out on the first step, also having FP/AIR 18 is also probably a good thing. I was unable to get a beta/non beta version working last time, you mind looking into that? Which AIR/FP versions are offered is independent of the release. That is managed in a data file on flex.a.o. What did you mean in your other post about signing the app? It is theoretically signed by some certificate Om created. Is there some other signature that is needed? -Alex
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
Hi, Are the contents of build.number correct? #Copyright 2014 The Apache Software Foundation. #Sat, 28 Sep 2013 18:23:00 +1000 build.number=0 Ignoring the incorrect dates, should the build.number be 0? Thanks, Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
Hi, The LICENSE and NOTICE are in the binary .dmg are exactly the same as the ones in the source release. I thought it was discussed and agreed that these should be different? Thanks, Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
build.number=0 Ignoring the incorrect dates, should the build.number be 0? ? EdB -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
Hi, The source release (.tar.gz) has a unexpected binary file inside it, so looks like there will need to be another RC. But I’ll do a full review before voting and see if there is anything else we need to fix as well. Here’s the file: ant_on_air/tests/OSMF2_0.swc Thanks, Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
Hi, The LICENSE and NOTICE are in the binary .dmg are exactly the same as the ones in the source release. I thought it was discussed and agreed that these should be different? Ah sorry they are different it's just that the extra license info is above the APACHE FLEX SUBCOMPONENTS” line. Thanks, Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
Hi, I’m also seeing a compile error, that seems to be related to placement of the NOTICE file? [get] To: /Users/justinmclean/Downloads/ApacheFlexSDKInstaller/apache-flex-sdk-installer-3.2.0-src/installer/deps/as3crypto/LICENSE.txt [java] no such file /Users/justinmclean/Downloads/ApacheFlexSDKInstaller/apache-flex-sdk-installer-3.2.0-src/installer/NOTICE [java] usage: [java] adt -checkstore SIGNING_OPTIONS snip BUILD FAILED /Users/justinmclean/Downloads/ApacheFlexSDKInstaller/apache-flex-sdk-installer-3.2.0-src/installer/build.xml:383: Java returned: 2 Anyone else seeing this or have I done something wrong? Thanks, Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
Anyone else seeing this or have I done something wrong? I reported this about an hour ago. EdB -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
Hi, Just trying to run the approve script. I get a failure while building. The 'packageair' step is looking for NOTICE in the 'installer' subdirectory, where it isn't. It seems to be in the root. Also I noticed that running the approve script that it doesn't check the PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME variable before starting, causing the build to just fail when it isn't. EdB On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 7:48 AM, Alex Harui aha...@adobe.com wrote: This is the discussion thread. Thanks, Alex Harui -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
[DISCUSS] Discuss Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 RC1
This is the discussion thread. Thanks, Alex Harui
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2
Hi, I've just tried last nightly build of installer (Build #380) and on the license agreements I see: http://images.devs-on.net/Image/a1bcfrLefuRiHbJB-Obszar.png Once I change language I see: http://images.devs-on.net/Image/qJZ5xeUiPfgyTChe-Obszar.png So we have an issue here. Additionally I don't see this - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-34687 Piotr - Apache Flex PMC piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com -- View this message in context: http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Release-Apache-Flex-SDK-Installer-3-2-tp44853p44957.html Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
RE: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2
If you have a list of checkboxes that should be on the license screen for v4.14.0 I can at least try and get that part fixed up. As for the SDK not being able to be used it could stem from this if there are bits that are loaded that didn't need to be and vice versa. Once this is updated it may fix that issue as well. I haven't come across that issue but it may be caused by the additional checkboxes appearing after the language change. Neil -Original Message- From: Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com] Sent: February-05-15 1:40 AM To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 Hi, Once I change language I see: http://images.devs-on.net/Image/qJZ5xeUiPfgyTChe-Obszar.png Yes and even worse if you now continue from this point it makes an SDK that doesn't work. I've raised this issue on the list recently but other PMC members didn't think it would occur enough to be considered an issue. Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2
Hi Neil, AIUI, the quantity of checkboxes should be the same after switching languages, and for a recent release like 4.14, the text for each checkbox should match what is pulled from the apache-flex-sdk-installer-config.xml for that release. 4.14’s is here [1], 4.13’s is here [2]: The installer has two major code paths. The “legacy” code path assumes a particular set of checkboxes that is coded into the source. The “new” code path derives the set of checkboxes from these .xml files. I imagine what we are seeing is that on a language change you end up back in the legacy code path’s set of checkboxes, instead of pulling new text from the .xml file. Thanks, -Alex [1] https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/release/flex/4.14.0/binaries/apache-flex -sdk-installer-config.xml [2] http://archive.apache.org/dist/flex/4.13.0/binaries/apache-flex-sdk-install er-config.xml On 2/5/15, 7:36 AM, Neil Madsen li...@cranialinteractive.com wrote: If you have a list of checkboxes that should be on the license screen for v4.14.0 I can at least try and get that part fixed up. As for the SDK not being able to be used it could stem from this if there are bits that are loaded that didn't need to be and vice versa. Once this is updated it may fix that issue as well. I haven't come across that issue but it may be caused by the additional checkboxes appearing after the language change. Neil -Original Message- From: Justin Mclean [mailto:jus...@classsoftware.com] Sent: February-05-15 1:40 AM To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 Hi, Once I change language I see: http://images.devs-on.net/Image/qJZ5xeUiPfgyTChe-Obszar.png Yes and even worse if you now continue from this point it makes an SDK that doesn't work. I've raised this issue on the list recently but other PMC members didn't think it would occur enough to be considered an issue. Justin
RE: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2
I have made some changes to the code and the check boxes seem to be working. If I could get a 'final' list of items to be displayed I can make sure the correct items are being displayed and then push this version for testing. Neil -Original Message- Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 Thanks Piotr. I see what's happening. Can someone please give a list of all required/optional check boxes to be displayed for v4.14.0 There has been so much discussion regarding what should and shouldn't be required I lost track and I'm not sure where it stands right now. If I have a list I can fix up the error when changing languages on the license screen. Neil -Original Message- From: piotrz [mailto:piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com] Sent: February-05-15 12:58 AM To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 Hi, I've just tried last nightly build of installer (Build #380) and on the license agreements I see: http://images.devs-on.net/Image/a1bcfrLefuRiHbJB-Obszar.png Once I change language I see: http://images.devs-on.net/Image/qJZ5xeUiPfgyTChe-Obszar.png So we have an issue here. Additionally I don't see this - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-34687 Piotr - Apache Flex PMC piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com -- View this message in context: http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Release-Apache- Flex-SDK-Installer-3-2-tp44853p44957.html Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2
Hi, Once I change language I see: http://images.devs-on.net/Image/qJZ5xeUiPfgyTChe-Obszar.png Yes and even worse if you now continue from this point it makes an SDK that doesn't work. I've raised this issue on the list recently but other PMC members didn't think it would occur enough to be considered an issue. Justin
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2
On 2/5/15, 12:39 AM, Justin Mclean jus...@classsoftware.com wrote: Hi, Once I change language I see: http://images.devs-on.net/Image/qJZ5xeUiPfgyTChe-Obszar.png Yes and even worse if you now continue from this point it makes an SDK that doesn't work. I've raised this issue on the list recently but other PMC members didn't think it would occur enough to be considered an issue. Did I miss a thread somewhere? I don’t recall any PMC member saying that we should ship Installer 3.2 with this problem. Piotr wrote that he found this in the nightly build. I certainly support someone trying to find a fix for 3.2. -Alex
RE: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2
Thanks Piotr. I see what's happening. Can someone please give a list of all required/optional check boxes to be displayed for v4.14.0 There has been so much discussion regarding what should and shouldn't be required I lost track and I'm not sure where it stands right now. If I have a list I can fix up the error when changing languages on the license screen. Neil -Original Message- From: piotrz [mailto:piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com] Sent: February-05-15 12:58 AM To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 Hi, I've just tried last nightly build of installer (Build #380) and on the license agreements I see: http://images.devs-on.net/Image/a1bcfrLefuRiHbJB-Obszar.png Once I change language I see: http://images.devs-on.net/Image/qJZ5xeUiPfgyTChe-Obszar.png So we have an issue here. Additionally I don't see this - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-34687 Piotr - Apache Flex PMC piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com -- View this message in context: http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Release-Apache- Flex-SDK-Installer-3-2-tp44853p44957.html Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
RE: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2
I have committed a fix for the checkboxes on the license screen so hopefully it works in the next generated nightly build. I tested it on windows with changing between SDKs and languages and all expected checkboxes were being displayed and I didn't encounter the 1009 error from FLEX-34687. Neil -Original Message- From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Sent: February-05-15 9:23 AM To: dev@flex.apache.org; Neil Madsen Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 Hi Neil, It sounds like there may still be confusion about how the checkbox set is determined. For recent releases like Flex SDK 4.13 and 4.14, and for FlexJS releases, the 'final' list of items is not in the InstallApacheFlex.mxml file at all. Really, there is no final list. It is totally data driven from xml files co-located with the release artifacts and can be different for each release. We can even change an .xml file after we release and the Installer needs to pick up that change at runtime. There is a set of checkboxes in InstallApacheFlex.mxml, but that is used for Flex SDK 4.12.1 and older (actually even whether 4.12.x uses the built-in checkboxes is determined by another .xml file). IOW, we are trying to make the installer be totally data driven, but it has to keep an old code path around. It looks like when the language changes, the installer reverts to the old code path. It needs to go down the new code path with the new language. HTH, -Alex On 2/5/15, 8:04 AM, Neil Madsen li...@cranialinteractive.com wrote: I have made some changes to the code and the check boxes seem to be working. If I could get a 'final' list of items to be displayed I can make sure the correct items are being displayed and then push this version for testing. Neil -Original Message- Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 Thanks Piotr. I see what's happening. Can someone please give a list of all required/optional check boxes to be displayed for v4.14.0 There has been so much discussion regarding what should and shouldn't be required I lost track and I'm not sure where it stands right now. If I have a list I can fix up the error when changing languages on the license screen. Neil -Original Message- From: piotrz [mailto:piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com] Sent: February-05-15 12:58 AM To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 Hi, I've just tried last nightly build of installer (Build #380) and on the license agreements I see: http://images.devs-on.net/Image/a1bcfrLefuRiHbJB-Obszar.png Once I change language I see: http://images.devs-on.net/Image/qJZ5xeUiPfgyTChe-Obszar.png So we have an issue here. Additionally I don't see this - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-34687 Piotr - Apache Flex PMC piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com -- View this message in context: http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Release-Ap ach e- Flex-SDK-Installer-3-2-tp44853p44957.html Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2
Hi Neil, It sounds like there may still be confusion about how the checkbox set is determined. For recent releases like Flex SDK 4.13 and 4.14, and for FlexJS releases, the ‘final’ list of items is not in the InstallApacheFlex.mxml file at all. Really, there is no final list. It is totally data driven from xml files co-located with the release artifacts and can be different for each release. We can even change an .xml file after we release and the Installer needs to pick up that change at runtime. There is a set of checkboxes in InstallApacheFlex.mxml, but that is used for Flex SDK 4.12.1 and older (actually even whether 4.12.x uses the built-in checkboxes is determined by another .xml file). IOW, we are trying to make the installer be totally data driven, but it has to keep an old code path around. It looks like when the language changes, the installer reverts to the old code path. It needs to go down the new code path with the new language. HTH, -Alex On 2/5/15, 8:04 AM, Neil Madsen li...@cranialinteractive.com wrote: I have made some changes to the code and the check boxes seem to be working. If I could get a 'final' list of items to be displayed I can make sure the correct items are being displayed and then push this version for testing. Neil -Original Message- Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 Thanks Piotr. I see what's happening. Can someone please give a list of all required/optional check boxes to be displayed for v4.14.0 There has been so much discussion regarding what should and shouldn't be required I lost track and I'm not sure where it stands right now. If I have a list I can fix up the error when changing languages on the license screen. Neil -Original Message- From: piotrz [mailto:piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com] Sent: February-05-15 12:58 AM To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 Hi, I've just tried last nightly build of installer (Build #380) and on the license agreements I see: http://images.devs-on.net/Image/a1bcfrLefuRiHbJB-Obszar.png Once I change language I see: http://images.devs-on.net/Image/qJZ5xeUiPfgyTChe-Obszar.png So we have an issue here. Additionally I don't see this - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-34687 Piotr - Apache Flex PMC piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com -- View this message in context: http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Release-Apach e- Flex-SDK-Installer-3-2-tp44853p44957.html Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
RE: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2
Hi Alex, Yes, this is exactly what is happening. When the language changes it doesn't check if there is data from the XML file available. It simply rebuilds the list of items from a predefined set in this method initializeInstallerComponentsDataProvider(). It should be looking for any data stored in _installerComponentsDataProvider and use that data if it's there. What I think has happened is that when the code was added to load the XML config data, the installer wasn't updated to use that data in all scenarios (and there are more than a few now). I think I know what needs to happen now so I'll try to wire it all up and get a working version. If I have any troubles I'll be sure to ask on the list. I'm pretty sure the _installerComponentsDataProvider and the usingXML:Boolean need to be used within the initializeInstallerComponentsDataProvider() method to determine what components/checkboxes are supposed to be displayed. This will allow for the dynamic data and a fallback for versions not using the XML config data. I'll post back with my results. Neil -Original Message- From: Alex Harui [mailto:aha...@adobe.com] Sent: February-05-15 9:23 AM To: dev@flex.apache.org; Neil Madsen Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 Hi Neil, It sounds like there may still be confusion about how the checkbox set is determined. For recent releases like Flex SDK 4.13 and 4.14, and for FlexJS releases, the 'final' list of items is not in the InstallApacheFlex.mxml file at all. Really, there is no final list. It is totally data driven from xml files co-located with the release artifacts and can be different for each release. We can even change an .xml file after we release and the Installer needs to pick up that change at runtime. There is a set of checkboxes in InstallApacheFlex.mxml, but that is used for Flex SDK 4.12.1 and older (actually even whether 4.12.x uses the built-in checkboxes is determined by another .xml file). IOW, we are trying to make the installer be totally data driven, but it has to keep an old code path around. It looks like when the language changes, the installer reverts to the old code path. It needs to go down the new code path with the new language. HTH, -Alex On 2/5/15, 8:04 AM, Neil Madsen li...@cranialinteractive.com wrote: I have made some changes to the code and the check boxes seem to be working. If I could get a 'final' list of items to be displayed I can make sure the correct items are being displayed and then push this version for testing. Neil -Original Message- Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 Thanks Piotr. I see what's happening. Can someone please give a list of all required/optional check boxes to be displayed for v4.14.0 There has been so much discussion regarding what should and shouldn't be required I lost track and I'm not sure where it stands right now. If I have a list I can fix up the error when changing languages on the license screen. Neil -Original Message- From: piotrz [mailto:piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com] Sent: February-05-15 12:58 AM To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 Hi, I've just tried last nightly build of installer (Build #380) and on the license agreements I see: http://images.devs-on.net/Image/a1bcfrLefuRiHbJB-Obszar.png Once I change language I see: http://images.devs-on.net/Image/qJZ5xeUiPfgyTChe-Obszar.png So we have an issue here. Additionally I don't see this - https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-34687 Piotr - Apache Flex PMC piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com -- View this message in context: http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Release-Ap ach e- Flex-SDK-Installer-3-2-tp44853p44957.html Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2
Do we want want to put a halt to this release to fix https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-34251? On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl wrote: Does this mean we can blame you on all the errors with your name on it :P? Indeed. I'm sacrificing my reputation as the 'never-ever-wrote-buggy-software-code-whisperer' for the greater good. People always feel better if they have someone else to blame :-P EdB -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2
On 04/02/15 16:24, Nicholas Kwiatkowski wrote: Do we want want to put a halt to this release to fix https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-34251? Well, I'm not going to use Jira as a discussion platform, but no would be my view. Software updates must be delivered over secure channels. This goes doubles for compilers. If people on older versions of Windows have to go enable some settings to make that work, we can document and warn of that, as Alex suggested in the Is SSK needed for load installer config? (was: Re: sdk 4.14.0 100% install failures) thread. Tom
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2
Why would we need to halt the release process? The 'less-RC' release process [1] has 3 phases, and we're currently still at the start of the first phase. I've made the LAST CALL, but clearly stated that I'll only cut the release branch when there's consensus on the ready-ness of the bits. EdB 1: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/FLEX/A+guide+to+the+Apache+Flex+release+process On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Nicholas Kwiatkowski nicho...@spoon.as wrote: Do we want want to put a halt to this release to fix https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-34251? On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl wrote: Does this mean we can blame you on all the errors with your name on it :P? Indeed. I'm sacrificing my reputation as the 'never-ever-wrote-buggy-software-code-whisperer' for the greater good. People always feel better if they have someone else to blame :-P EdB -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
RE: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2
hahaha :) Mark, That's why we haven't had any other volunteers for this job. :D Erik is taking it great. :) Piotr - Apache Flex PMC piotrzarzyck...@gmail.com -- View this message in context: http://apache-flex-development.247.n4.nabble.com/DISCUSS-Release-Apache-Flex-SDK-Installer-3-2-tp44853p44918.html Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
RE: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2
Does this mean we can blame you on all the errors with your name on it :P? -Mark -Original Message- From: Erik de Bruin [mailto:e...@ixsoftware.nl] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 11:19 AM To: dev@flex.apache.org Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2 Sorry Eric, I wish I could do it but I'm not skilled enough :( Not really any skills required, just a masochistic desire to have your account name show up in the stack trace :-P EdB -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2
Does this mean we can blame you on all the errors with your name on it :P? Indeed. I'm sacrificing my reputation as the 'never-ever-wrote-buggy-software-code-whisperer' for the greater good. People always feel better if they have someone else to blame :-P EdB -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2
Wow, what an overwhelming response... I'll have to disappoint the other volunteers, but I'm taking this one ;-) Let's get this show on the road! EdB On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl wrote: Hi, If no one else volunteers, I'm prepared to manage this release as well. EdB -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2
Sorry Eric, I wish I could do it but I'm not skilled enough :( Not really any skills required, just a masochistic desire to have your account name show up in the stack trace :-P EdB -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
Re: [DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2
Sorry Eric, I wish I could do it but I'm not skilled enough :( Thx for the great work Dany Op 3-feb.-2015, om 17:05 heeft Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl het volgende geschreven: Wow, what an overwhelming response... I'll have to disappoint the other volunteers, but I'm taking this one ;-) Let's get this show on the road! EdB On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 6:22 PM, Erik de Bruin e...@ixsoftware.nl wrote: Hi, If no one else volunteers, I'm prepared to manage this release as well. EdB -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
[DISCUSS] Release Apache Flex SDK Installer 3.2
Hi, If no one else volunteers, I'm prepared to manage this release as well. EdB -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
