On 7/31/15, 1:59 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala" <omup...@gmail.com on behalf of bigosma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>That does not solve the problem of the FlexJS installation failing. The >> >GCL download step can still fail, which seems to be happening a lot. >> >> Yeah, I’m tempted to file a GitHub issue in that project asking for >> releases so we can offer more stability. > > >I was thinking the same too. > Feel free to do that. Another option is for us to fork it and always grab the head of the fork. > >> If they keep up changing the >> head every few days like they have been it will become a time-saver to >> bundle or point to a stable version. If you want to do the work, I > >certainly won’t stand in the way. >> > >Yes, I want to do it. I have some time to spend on FlexJS and I believe >this would be as good a sub-task as any other. >Any pointers on where I should start? Well, given this is Apache, I would first start by double-checking the licensing and provenance of GCL. We’ve been treating it as a build tool, so it doesn’t need as much scrutiny. Once you bundle it I think the game changes. > I am assuming the release build task >in the ant file needs to updated to first download the GCL, check the MD5, >dump it into a third-party (or something) folder before zipping up the >binary. After, we need to update installer.xml to get rid of the GCL >step. Is that correct? Anything I am missing? The installer puts GCL in a certain place, so the build script should put GCL in the same place and then copy it to the temp folder in the same place where it will get packaged up. And then you get to change LICENSE.bin and maybe NOTICE.bin. Every time we bundle we add complicating factors to our release process. -Alex
