I just logged into the CI server. I see that the configuration for Release Step 2 includes running Maven with the following options:
-X --batch-mode -Proyale-release,apache-release release:prepare -Dtag=org.apache.royale.compiler-$releaseversion-rc$RCNUMBER -DpushChanges=false -Dusername=$GITUSERNAME Notice that -P does not include option-with-swf. I think that you need to update Release Step 2 on the CI server. Since releasesteps.xml includes option-with-swf, the CI server should too. -- Josh Tynjala Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 1:43 AM Yishay Weiss <yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Running ant -f releasesteps.xml Release_Step_003 -Drelease.version=0.9.8 > succeeds on the CI server but fails my local pc because of this difference > in DEPENDENCIES. So it’s the same command being run with different results, > which means we can’t release. > > The only differences I can think of are the mvn version (mine is 3.6.3, > CI’s is 3.6.0), and the java version (mine is 1.8.0_281, CI’s is 1.8.0_201). > > I tried removing the playerglobal.swc from CI server’s .m2 repo and > letting mvn download it but it’s the same result. > > From: Josh Tynjala<mailto:joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev> > Sent: Tuesday, April 6, 2021 7:42 PM > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> > Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?) > > I have tested locally and confirmed that playerglobal.swc is listed in > flex-compiler-oem's META-INF/DEPENDENCIES only when using -P > option-with-swf. That makes sense. So I guess you didn't use -P > option-with-swf on one of the computers. > > -- > Josh Tynjala > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > > > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 9:23 AM Josh Tynjala <joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev> > wrote: > > > Yeah, that could be where it comes from. By why would that affect one > > computer, but not another? That doesn't make sense to me. Unless maybe a > > slightly different command is being run on the two computers. Are both > > using option-with-swf? > > > > -- > > Josh Tynjala > > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 1:58 AM Yishay Weiss <yishayj...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >> Not sure if this is related, but I found this in > >> royale-compiler/compiler/pom.xml > >> > >> <profile> > >> <id>option-with-swf</id> > >> <dependencies> > >> <!-- Ensure the playerglobal is available for running tests --> > >> <dependency> > >> <groupId>com.adobe.flash.framework</groupId> > >> <artifactId>playerglobal</artifactId> > >> <version>${flash.version}</version> > >> <type>swc</type> > >> <scope>runtime</scope> > >> </dependency> > >> </dependencies> > >> </profile> > >> > >> From: Josh Tynjala<mailto:joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev> > >> Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 7:26 PM > >> To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> > >> Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe removed > >> Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?) > >> > >> I wouldn't expect a compiler .jar file to have a dependency on any .swc > >> files. That doesn't really make any sense to me. Chris might know, since > >> he > >> did the Maven stuff, but he may or may not be around to help anymore. > >> > >> -- > >> Josh Tynjala > >> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 4:14 AM Yishay Weiss <yishayj...@hotmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > One more thing, perhaps related. I’m getting a different in the > >> > flex-compiler-oem-0.9.8.jar between my local system and the CI server > >> > because of this line > >> > > >> > + - playerglobal com.adobe.flash.framework:playerglobal:swc:20.0 > >> > > >> > In META-INF/DEPENDENCIES > >> > > >> > which only exists in one of the systems. Any ideas on how to get > around > >> > that? > >> > > >> > Thanks. > >> > > >> > From: Yishay Weiss<mailto:yishayj...@hotmail.com> > >> > Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 10:36 AM > >> > To: dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> > >> > Subject: RE: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe > removed > >> > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?) > >> > > >> > Hi Josh, > >> > > >> > I’m running release ant script which has > >> > > >> > <exec executable="${mvn}" dir="${artifactfolder}/sources" > >> > failonerror="true" > > >> > <arg value="clean" /> > >> > <arg value="install" /> > >> > <arg value="-Proyale-release,option-with-swf" /> > >> > </exec> > >> > > >> > This results in > >> > > >> > [exec] [INFO] Installing > >> > > >> > C:\temp2\sources\compiler-playerglobalc\target\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar > >> > to C:\Users\yisha\.m2\repository\org\apache\royale\compile > >> > r\compiler-playerglobalc\0.9.8\compiler-playerglobalc-0.9.8-tests.jar > >> > [exec] [INFO] > >> > [exec] [INFO] ----------------< > org.apache.royale.compiler:compiler > >> > >----------------- > >> > [exec] [INFO] Building Apache Royale: Compiler: Compiler 0.9.8 > >> > [6/13] > >> > [exec] [INFO] --------------------------------[ jar > >> > ]--------------------------------- > >> > [exec] [INFO] Couldn't find artifact: > >> > com.adobe.flash.framework:20.0:playerglobal:pom > >> > [exec] [INFO] > >> > =========================================================== > >> > [exec] [INFO] - Installing Adobe Flash SDK 20.0 > >> > [exec] SLF4J: Class path contains multiple SLF4J bindings. > >> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in > >> > > >> > [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/apache/flex/utilities/converter/flex-sdk-converter-maven-extension/1.0.0/flex-sdk-converter-m > >> > aven-extension-1.0.0.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class] > >> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in > >> > > >> > [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/org/slf4j/slf4j-simple/1.7.21/slf4j-simple-1.7.21.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class] > >> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in > >> > > >> > [jar:file:/C:/Users/yisha/.m2/repository/ch/qos/logback/logback-classic/1.1.7/logback-classic-1.1.7.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder > >> > .class] > >> > [exec] SLF4J: Found binding in > >> > > >> > [jar:file:/C:/dev/apache-maven-3.6.3/bin/../lib/maven-slf4j-provider-3.6.3.jar!/org/slf4j/impl/StaticLoggerBinder.class] > >> > [exec] SLF4J: See > >> http://www.slf4j.org/codes.html#multiple_bindings > >> > for an explanation. > >> > [exec] SLF4J: Actual binding is of type > >> > [org.slf4j.impl.SimpleLoggerFactory] > >> > [exec] Your System-Id: ca4f30bf > >> > [exec] The Adobe SDK license agreement applies to the Adobe Flash > >> > Player playerglobal.swc. Do you want to install the Adobe Flash Player > >> > playerglobal.swc? > >> > [exec] (In a non-interactive build such as a CI server build, > >> > alternatively to typing y or yes you can also set a system property > >> > containing your system which is interpr > >> > eted as equivalent to accepting by typing y or yes: > >> > > >> > -Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf > >> > ) > >> > > >> > Adding > >> > > >> > <arg > >> > > >> > value="-Dcom.adobe.systemIdsForWhichTheTermsOfTheAdobeLicenseAgreementAreAccepted=ca4f30bf" > >> > /> > >> > > >> > Did make the prompt go away, but I’m not sure if I can commit ca4f30bf > >> or > >> > if that’s specific to my system. > >> > > >> > Can you advise? > >> > > >> > Thanks. > >> > > >> > From: Josh Tynjala<mailto:joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev> > >> > Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 12:39 AM > >> > To: Apache Royale Development<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org> > >> > Subject: Re: [Discuss] What to do with SWF target now that Adobe > removed > >> > Flash Player in 2021 (Re: How to build from now on?) > >> > > >> > Here's a follow-up with my progress in March. > >> > > >> > Last month, I had gotten airglobal.swc building, and now, I've figured > >> out > >> > how to exclude the AIR-only APIs and build a separate playerglobal.swc > >> too. > >> > I've committed playerglobal and airglobal projects to royale-typedefs. > >> > Again, these .swc files get built from the Apache-licensed doc XML > files > >> > that Adobe donated to Apache Flex. > >> > > >> > I've made some changes to the builds for royale-asjs to start using > >> these > >> > new .swc files. Libraries build. Examples build. Tests pass. These > .swc > >> > files are working nicely. Things can still be improved, but it's a > solid > >> > start. > >> > > >> > Maven is using our airglobal/playerglobal for pretty much everything. > >> You > >> > can run `mvn clean install` at the root of royale-asjs, and it will > >> build > >> > all framework .swc files without requiring any Adobe artifacts. You > can > >> > also run with `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` to build a > >> zip/tar.gz > >> > distribution without requiring any Adobe artifacts. > >> > > >> > The only time that the Maven build still requires Adobe artifacts is > if > >> you > >> > specify `-P with-distribution,option-with-swf` and > >> > `-DdistributionTargetFolder=` together. The > `-DdistributionTargetFolder` > >> > option merges in everything from the AIR SDK (not only airglobal.swc, > >> but > >> > also executables like adt and adl), and I assume that we still want > >> that to > >> > be possible, but optional. If you need a SWF distribution without > Adobe > >> > stuff, just build the zip/tar.gz version and extract it. > >> > > >> > I basically consider the Maven changes to be done at this point. > >> > > >> > Ant is using our airglobal/playerglobal in some places, but not > >> everywhere > >> > yet. You can run `ant` in the root of royale-asjs, and it will build > all > >> > framework .swc files without requiring Adobe artifacts. If you have > >> > env.AIR_HOME or env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME specified, it will still use > Adobe > >> > artifacts, and I plan to keep that working for anyone who happens to > >> prefer > >> > that. If you don't have those environment variables set, it will use > our > >> > airglobal/playerglobal automatically. > >> > > >> > Building a SWF distribution with Ant still requires env.AIR_HOME and > >> > env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME at this time. I just didn't have quite enough > time > >> > this month to finish that part. Next month, I hope to be able to > modify > >> the > >> > Ant build to do a full release without Adobe artifacts (except you'll > >> still > >> > need Flash Player to run tests, of course). > >> > > >> > I know that there's been talk of doing a release soon. While my work > is > >> > still in progress, it's currently in a state that should not prevent a > >> > release, if someone wants to do one. As I said, you can still specify > >> > env.AIR_HOME and env.PLAYERGLOBAL_HOME, and the Ant release > distribution > >> > build with Adobe artifacts should work the same as before. > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Josh Tynjala > >> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 3:55 PM Josh Tynjala < > joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev > >> > > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Just an update on my progress in February to create an > Apache-licensed > >> > > playerglobal.swc. Last month, I had successfully built the SWC file > >> using > >> > > the Apache-licensed asdoc XML files that are in the Flex SDK, but I > >> > hadn't > >> > > had a chance to see if I could drop it in to replace the official > >> Adobe > >> > SWC > >> > > yet. When I finally got a chance to try it this month, my SWC didn't > >> work > >> > > at first. However, I was able to make some tweaks to the APIs where > I > >> > > discovered that types/parameters were slightly wrong in the docs. I > >> can > >> > now > >> > > successfully use the SWC to build the entire Royale framework > >> (including > >> > > running RoyaleUnit tests), and I can run the compiler's > >> > > "royale.dependent.tests" integration tests too. > >> > > > >> > > I also cleaned up the command line API for playerglobalc to make it > >> work > >> > > more like other compiler tools, like mxmlc, compc, or externc. After > >> > > getting that working, I updated the royale-maven-plugin to make it > >> > possible > >> > > to build the same SWC using either Maven or the command line. > >> > > > >> > > What I still need to do: > >> > > > >> > > - Build separately playerglobal.swc and airglobal.swc. AIR-only APIs > >> > > should not appear in playerglobal.swc. > >> > > - Test the SWC with some non-Royale projects too. Since building the > >> > > Royale framework helped me find some APIs that were slightly wrong > in > >> the > >> > > docs, I figure that I should test the SWC with some other projects > >> too. I > >> > > plan to drop the SWC into the Flex SDK, and test some apps using > Flex, > >> > > Starling, and Feathers. That should cover a wide range of APIs. If > >> they > >> > all > >> > > compile and run, then I think our Apache-licensed replacement will > be > >> > > looking pretty solid. > >> > > - Finally, I need to figure out how to integrate our new > >> > > playerglobal.swc/airglobal.swc into the distribution builds. I'd > like > >> to > >> > > allow anyone building the framework to continue to use SWCs from > >> Adobe or > >> > > Harman, if they'd prefer. > >> > > > >> > > -- > >> > > Josh Tynjala > >> > > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 2:16 PM Josh Tynjala < > >> joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> FYI — I just pushed a prototype playerglobal-source-gen project to > >> the > >> > >> royale-compiler repo. It's a command line app that can generate .as > >> > files > >> > >> from the Flex SDK's Apache-licensed asdoc files for > playerglobal.swc. > >> > The > >> > >> idea is to use these generated .as files to compile our own > >> > >> playerglobal.swc that we can distribute under the Apache license. > If > >> > Adobe > >> > >> ever decides to remove playerglobal.swc from their website, we'll > >> have > >> > our > >> > >> version available as a backup. > >> > >> > >> > >> I've gotten the project far enough along that I can successfully > >> build > >> > >> the generated .as source files into a .swc without any compiler > >> errors. > >> > >> However, I haven't yet had a chance to check if that .swc can be > used > >> > in an > >> > >> SDK/distribution instead of the official playerglobal.swc or > >> > airglobal.swc. > >> > >> In February, when I have some more time, I'll continue testing all > of > >> > that. > >> > >> I just wanted to share my current progress so far! > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> Josh Tynjala > >> > >> Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 1:34 AM Carlos Rovira < > >> carlosrov...@apache.org> > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>> Hi Josh, > >> > >>> > >> > >>> I think that's a very good idea. As less external dependencies we > >> have > >> > >>> the > >> > >>> better. And I think that means one thing less to download or > manage > >> by > >> > >>> mavenizer. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Could it be possible that you contribute it? > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Thanks > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> El lun, 4 ene 2021 a las 21:53, Josh Tynjala (< > >> > joshtynj...@bowlerhat.dev > >> > >>> >) > >> > >>> escribió: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > If necessary, I believe that we can create our own custom > >> > >>> playerglobal.swc > >> > >>> > without running into license issues. > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > Basically, the official playerglobal.swc contains only the APIs, > >> and > >> > no > >> > >>> > implementation, so it's basically like the typedef/externs SWCs > >> that > >> > we > >> > >>> > create for JS libraries in Royale > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > The Apache Flex repo contains full ASDoc XML files for > >> > playerglobal.swc > >> > >>> > under an Apache license. These files should contain enough > >> > information > >> > >>> > about variable/property types and method signatures that someone > >> > could > >> > >>> > write a parser to get all of the data we need to generate AS3 > stub > >> > >>> classes > >> > >>> > and build a SWC from that. > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > -- > >> > >>> > Josh Tynjala > >> > >>> > Bowler Hat LLC <https://bowlerhat.dev> > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > On Sun, Jan 3, 2021 at 11:07 AM Harbs <harbs.li...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > Let’s wait and see whether we are dealing with real issues or > >> not. > >> > If > >> > >>> > it’s > >> > >>> > > an issue we can debate solutions. > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > I’m happy to ask my Adobe contacts what the plan is. > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > On Jan 3, 2021, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Rovira < > >> > carlosrov...@apache.org > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > wrote: > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > Hi Harbs, > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > the problem here's that I think we are on Apache, and using > a > >> > >>> piece of > >> > >>> > > > software that is under a clear license use will be against > the > >> > >>> > foundation > >> > >>> > > > rules. So although you or I can host the files, that's not > >> seem > >> > to > >> > >>> me > >> > >>> > > like > >> > >>> > > > a solution to the real problem. > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > I'm for go step by step and first try to talk with Adobe > >> > >>> > representatives > >> > >>> > > to > >> > >>> > > > get the permission for Apache to host the player files only > >> for > >> > our > >> > >>> > flex > >> > >>> > > > and royale use cases. I think we could continue discussion > >> after > >> > we > >> > >>> > know > >> > >>> > > > the solution to this request > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > Can you, Alex or others do this request? or if you want I > can > >> do > >> > >>> it, > >> > >>> > but > >> > >>> > > > need someone to provide me the contact at adobe. > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > Thanks > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > El dom, 3 ene 2021 a las 15:59, Harbs (< > harbs.li...@gmail.com > >> >) > >> > >>> > > escribió: > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > >> There’s no license agreement when downloading playerglobal > or > >> > the > >> > >>> > > content > >> > >>> > > >> debugger. > >> > >>> > > >> > >> > >>> > > >> I’m willing to take the risk to personally host these files > >> if > >> > >>> > > necessary. > >> > >>> > > >> > >> > >>> > > >>> On Jan 3, 2021, at 4:47 PM, Christofer Dutz < > >> > >>> > christofer.d...@c-ware.de > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > >> wrote: > >> > >>> > > >>> > >> > >>> > > >>> And I doubt we would be allowed to simply upload Adobe > >> stuff to > >> > >>> any > >> > >>> > > >> other server wirhout explicit conset from them. The license > >> > >>> agreement > >> > >>> > > you > >> > >>> > > >> agreed to when downloading explicitly forbids that (at > least > >> it > >> > >>> did, > >> > >>> > > wenn > >> > >>> > > >> we were working on the Flex Mavenizer and I doubt things > >> > changed) > >> > >>> > > >> > >> > >>> > > >> > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > -- > >> > >>> > > > Carlos Rovira > >> > >>> > > > Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC > >> > >>> > > > *Apache Software Foundation* > >> > >>> > > > http://about.me/carlosrovira > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> -- > >> > >>> Carlos Rovira > >> > >>> Apache Member & Apache Royale PMC > >> > >>> *Apache Software Foundation* > >> > >>> http://about.me/carlosrovira > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >
