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 : 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" 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" 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
On 6/22/15, 8:35 AM, "Frédéric THOMAS" 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 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'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 AT&T 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 wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 6/22/15, 1:03 AM, "Justin Mclean" >>> > 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 fo
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 AT&T 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 wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 6/22/15, 1:03 AM, "Justin Mclean" >> > 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<http://www.ixsoftware.nl> >
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 AT&T 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 wrote: > >> >> >> On 6/22/15, 1:03 AM, "Justin Mclean" > > 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<http://www.ixsoftware.nl>
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 wrote: > >> >> >> On 6/22/15, 1:03 AM, "Justin Mclean" > > 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 wrote: > > > On 6/22/15, 1:03 AM, "Justin Mclean" > 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
On 6/22/15, 1:03 AM, "Justin Mclean" 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
I will be able to review this rc2 tonight (which is half a day away at this time). -Mark
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
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 wrote: > > > On 6/21/15, 11:05 PM, "Justin Mclean" 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
On 6/21/15, 11:05 PM, "Justin Mclean" 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, > 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, 10:21 PM, "Justin Mclean" 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
On 6/21/15, 9:43 PM, "Justin Mclean" 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
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Justin Mclean 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
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
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" 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 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" 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
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" 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, 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
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 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" 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
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" 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 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
