The way I understand it, the proposal is to kinda “fork” the installer on occasions where a non-Apache binary distribution solves a problem. Or maybe it would just be a way to host a binary that was created using the regular Git ‘develop’ branch.
Did I get that right? EdB On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 7:14 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote: > So what exactly goes in this flex-extras repo? > > Thanks, > Om > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > I would definitely recommend that the MD5 and ASC hash/sigs be co-located > > with the artifacts. > > > > BTW, I still have plans to create a separate business entity that, among > > other things, will distribute Flex and FlexJS binaries that are > > essentially how Adobe distributed SDKs: AIR/Flash will be packaged in > it. > > No install necessary. Just unzip and point your IDE at it. > > > > I have to get clearance from Adobe before I do it, and just have been too > > swamped to do it, but my hope is that it will cut down significantly on > > failed installs since, once you get a package that unzips there will not > > be anything else to download and potentially fail. > > > > -Alex > > > > On 10/23/14, 7:33 AM, "Kessler CTR Mark J" <mark.kessler....@usmc.mil> > > wrote: > > > > >The only reason I bring this up; some people verify the package has not > > >been modified if getting it from another source. > > > > > >-Mark > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: Harbs [mailto:harbs.li...@gmail.com] > > >Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 10:00 AM > > >To: dev@flex.apache.org > > >Subject: Re: Convenience Binary Policy > > > > > >I think that's up to us. > > > > > >On Oct 23, 2014, at 4:56 PM, Kessler CTR Mark J > > ><mark.kessler....@usmc.mil> wrote: > > > > > >> I like the idea so far. Would there still be hashes / signatures on > > >>the non-official releases? > > >> > > >> -Mark > > > > > > > > -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
