t there were symlinks for Mac. Maybe it doesn't matter for what
> >we use it for.
> >
> >Sent from my LG G3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
> >
> >-- Original message--
> >From: OmPrakash Muppirala
> >Date: Thu, Nov 3
ilto:bigosma...@gmail.com>>
Date: Thursday, November 3, 2016 at 2:11 PM
To: Alex Harui mailto:aha...@adobe.com>>
Cc: "dev@flex.apache.org<mailto:dev@flex.apache.org>"
mailto:dev@flex.apache.org>>
Subject: Re: Installer.xml changes needed (was Re: New Flex SDK release)
Hi,
> I'd like to get FLEX-34880 done for this release. If I work on it in
> the weekend, would it be too late, you think?
That will be fine, it will be a little while before we make a release candidate
and vote on it.
Thanks,
Justin
; section)
> >> > Was there any announcement about this change?
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 11:11 AM, Alex Harui wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I see links for dmg and exe from here http://labs.adobe.com/
> >> > > downl
om: OmPrakash Muppirala
>Date: Thu, Nov 3, 2016 11:31 AM
>To: dev@flex.apache.org;
>Subject:Re: Installer.xml changes needed (was Re: New Flex SDK release)
>
>Interestingly, I was able to simply unzip the .dmg file and inspect its
>contents. It simply has a folder called AIR SDK
> If there are any issues you want to see fixed in this release please add them
> to this subtask [2] in the release JIRA.
I'd like to get FLEX-34880 done for this release. If I work on it in
the weekend, would it be too late, you think?
nt from my LG G3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
> > >
> > > -- Original message--
> > > *From: *OmPrakash Muppirala
> > > *Date: *Thu, Nov 3, 2016 10:10 AM
> > > *To: *dev@flex.apache.org;
> > > *Subject:*Re: Installer.xml change
TE smartphone
> > >
> > > -- Original message--
> > > *From: *OmPrakash Muppirala
> > > *Date: *Thu, Nov 3, 2016 10:10 AM
> > > *To: *dev@flex.apache.org;
> > > *Subject:*Re: Installer.xml changes needed (was Re: New Flex SDK
> release)
y not be the latest.
> >
> > Sent from my LG G3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
> >
> > -- Original message--
> > *From: *OmPrakash Muppirala
> > *Date: *Thu, Nov 3, 2016 10:10 AM
> > *To: *dev@flex.apache.org;
> > *Subject:*Re: Installe
and tar will go away or may not be the latest.
>
> Sent from my LG G3, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
>
> -- Original message--
> *From: *OmPrakash Muppirala
> *Date: *Thu, Nov 3, 2016 10:10 AM
> *To: *dev@flex.apache.org;
> *Subject:*Re: Installer.xml changes nee
dev@flex.apache.org;
Subject:Re: Installer.xml changes needed (was Re: New Flex SDK release)
I still see the zip file available here
https://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/labs/flashruntimes/air/AdobeAIRSDK.zip
On Nov 3, 2016 9:54 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>
>
> On 11/3/16, 9:35 AM
And I still see the adl.exe inside the zip file: https://snag.gy/uSrbL5.jpg
On Thu, Nov 3, 2016 at 10:10 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala
wrote:
> I still see the zip file available here
>
> https://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/labs/flashruntimes/
> air/AdobeAIRSDK.zip
>
> On Nov 3, 2016 9:54 AM, "Alex
I still see the zip file available here
https://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/labs/flashruntimes/air/AdobeAIRSDK.zip
On Nov 3, 2016 9:54 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
>
>
> On 11/3/16, 9:35 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
> wrote:
>
> >I can take this work up. Depending on
On 11/3/16, 9:35 AM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala"
wrote:
>I can take this work up. Depending on how much work this would take and
>amy available bandwidth, this could take a while.
>
>Do you know what exactly needs to be done here?
Don't know for sure. My guess would
I can take this work up. Depending on how much work this would take and
amy available bandwidth, this could take a while.
Do you know what exactly needs to be done here?
Thanks,
Om
On Nov 3, 2016 8:54 AM, "Alex Harui" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The Adobe AIR SDK 24 is available in beta form at [1] and
Hi,
The Adobe AIR SDK 24 is available in beta form at [1] and is incompatible
with our installers (both for regular Flex as well as FlexJS). So, our
users currently will not be able to use the Installer or Ant to set up
with Adobe AIR 24 or later. I have created JIRA issues FLEX-35166 and
FLEX-3
On 11/3/16, 1:12 AM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>> One thing I would really be dleighted about, would be, if we could get
>>rid of the patched libraries used in the sdk.
>> However I don’t have any idea what sideeffects this would have.
>
>Way back I did look into doing so but was going to b
Hi,
> This is the modified AwesomeUtils.as [1] which includes the update to
> FontAwesome 4.7 and the MIT licence header that replaces the Apache license
> header.
Looks good to me.
> Should I commit it to the 4.16.0 branch?
Yep when ever you have time to do so that would be great.
Thanks,
Jus
Hi Justin,
Guess I would opt to work on that path, but I’m not going to put up with the
build. So probably the path would be to migrate the FlexSDK to be buildable
with maven and as soon as I have a stable system with good test coverage, to
start cleaning this up. But at the moment I don’t know
Justin Mclean wrote
> I’m not a lawyer but looking at the file I’d use the MIT header only.
This is the modified AwesomeUtils.as [1] which includes the update to
FontAwesome 4.7 and the MIT licence header that replaces the Apache license
header.
If this is ok I'll commit it to the origin Flex repo
Hi,
> Should I replace the Apache license header by the MIT one or should I add
> the MIT header under the Apache license header?
Generally the changes have to be extensive to change the header on a file,
translation from one language to another generaly doesn’t count.
I’m not a lawyer but look
>Yes that an option (and given as one on legal discuss).
Great! One last question:
Should I replace the Apache license header by the MIT one or should I add
the MIT header under the Apache license header?
Thanks!
Olaf
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-flex-development.247.n4
Hi,
> I'm also not a layer and I don't want to trigger another license disucssion
> here but is it not enough to just add the MIT license text as additional
> header to the affected files including the required copyright info?
Yes that an option (and given as one on legal discuss).
Given the git
I'm also not a layer and I don't want to trigger another license disucssion
here but is it not enough to just add the MIT license text as additional
header to the affected files including the required copyright info?
MIT license:
"The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be incl
Hi,
> One thing I would really be dleighted about, would be, if we could get rid of
> the patched libraries used in the sdk.
> However I don’t have any idea what sideeffects this would have.
Way back I did look into doing so but was going to be a lot of work for Bartik
as Adobe made a large nu
Hi,
And it turns out this is a know outstanding issue (for a while) and other
people have the same issue :-( [1]
Justin
1. https://github.com/FortAwesome/Font-Awesome/issues/5281
One thing I would really be dleighted about, would be, if we could get rid of
the patched libraries used in the sdk.
However I don’t have any idea what sideeffects this would have.
Chris
Am 03.11.16, 08:53 schrieb "Justin Mclean" :
Hi,
> Should we also take care of license issues
Hi,
> Should we also take care of license issues cause we grab [2] and create a
> new file of it [3]?
[2] is MIT licensed so IMO it wouldn’t hurt it add a pointer of that MIT to our
LICENSE file. That way all bases are covered.
There is an issue here (similar with certain other 3rd parties) in
Justin Mclean wrote
> I assume we are only using the font files?
I think we use the .otf font [1] and variables.less [2]. But latter only as
template to create the AS3 constants file [3].
I understand that 4.7 font and code is compatible with Apache so we're
probably fine but just out of curiosity
Hi guys,
Material icons (https://material.io/icons/) is available under Apache
License. It can be a serious alternative to Font Awesome.
Hope it helps.
Regards,
Fabrice Montfort
2016-11-03 11:08 GMT+04:00 Harbs :
> In morre general terms:
>
> While we obviously cannot include content with inc
In morre general terms:
While we obviously cannot include content with incompatible licenses, I do
think we should make it easy for users who want to use such content with
FlexJS. For example, if a user has a license to Font Awesome Pro, it should be
easy to do something to their config and jus
Hi,
> There will be still a community Version... Is this also incompatible with
> Apache?
The 4.7 community version is under a variety of license of which the code and
font are under a compatible license [1]. Their documentation isn’t under a
compatible license.
Hopefully this will be the sa
Justin Mclean wrote
> Hi,
>
>> I would update FontAwesome to the latest release so we have one more
>> minor
>> change…
>
> You want to take care of [1]. I also noticed this the other week [2] which
> has raised almost $500,000! Sadly the license isn’t likely to be
> compatible with Apache.
>
>
Hi,
> I would update FontAwesome to the latest release so we have one more minor
> change…
You want to take care of [1]. I also noticed this the other week [2] which has
raised almost $500,000! Sadly the license isn’t likely to be compatible with
Apache.
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://issues.apach
Hi,
I created a JIRA to track the progress here [1]. If anyone want to help out
please assign themselves one of the sub tasks.
Thanks,
Justin
1. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-35146
Hi,
> Are you thinking of this as a 4.16 or 4.15.1?
I was thinking 4.16 but it doesn't really matter.
Justin
Justin Mclean wrote
> Hi,
> It’s been quite a while (10 months!) since we’ve made a new Flex SDK
> release, and there's a number of changes and fixes that have been made in
> develop.
> If no-one else want to be the release manager I’ll put my hand up for the
> role.
> Thanks,
> Justin
>From my po
On 11/1/16, 4:02 PM, "Justin Mclean" wrote:
>Hi,
>
>It’s been quite a while (10 months!) since we’ve made a new Flex SDK
>release, and there's a number of changes and fixes that have been made in
>develop.
Are you thinking of this as a 4.16 or 4.15.1?
-Alex
38 matches
Mail list logo
