Re: Testing npm deployment

Royale (JSOnly) has no extra downloads. Royale-swf needs the non-open stuff (AIR, Flash, Flat). On 12/18/17, 12:20 PM, "omup...@gmail.com on behalf of OmPrakash Muppirala" wrote: >On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Alex Harui

Re: Testing npm deployment

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > Hi Om, > > I have not tested the royale-swf package and I wouldn't be surprised if > that package needs help since it does have a script that downloads other > stuff, so it would be a great help if you could make

Re: Testing npm deployment

Hi Om, I have not tested the royale-swf package and I wouldn't be surprised if that package needs help since it does have a script that downloads other stuff, so it would be a great help if you could make sure that package is working and that npm installs of the nightly builds works in general.

Re: Testing npm deployment

Okay, this is one way to do it which I am not too opposed to. So, at this point, I assume there is nothing else to do to as far as npm goes? How can I help? I will leave my branch as is in case we decide to go that route at a later point of time. Thanks, Om On Dec 18, 2017 10:04 AM, "Alex

Re: Testing npm deployment

That is the question I've been asking for several posts now. AIUI, when you publish a package in NPM, the package is copied to NPM's servers. This post [3] implies that we should not use "npm publish" on anything that isn't released. So my conclusion, and what I checked in, was two NPM packages

Re: Testing npm deployment

We need multiple versions of package json: release jsonly, nightly jsonly, rc jsonly, release jsandswf, nightly jsandswf, rc jsandswf. Nightly and rc builds need to be loaded from static urls, wheras releases need to be loaded from a mirror. Where will mirror url resolution take place? How are

Re: Testing npm deployment

Hi Om, My logic is that package.json goes into a binary artifact for NPM, so at some point, we are supposed to vote on package.json being correct. If you modify package.json after the vote, or don't put in in a source artifact, we are technically releasing an unapproved file. If we find

Re: Testing npm deployment

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:41 AM, Alex Harui wrote: > Hi Om, > > I'm not sure what your definition of "direct dependency" is, but we > already have Maven stuff in the source package so we can directly publish > Maven artifacts to Maven central. What is wrong with

Re: Testing npm deployment

Hi Om, I'm not sure what your definition of "direct dependency" is, but we already have Maven stuff in the source package so we can directly publish Maven artifacts to Maven central. What is wrong with having NPM stuff in the source package as well? The plan is currently to run the Maven

Re: Testing npm deployment

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > Om, > > One thing I'm confused about: When I read about NPM publishing [1], it > sounds like you can publish a folder of stuff (and/or a gzip of that > folder) and thus the binaries shouldn't need to be downloaded

Re: Testing npm deployment

Om, One thing I'm confused about: When I read about NPM publishing [1], it sounds like you can publish a folder of stuff (and/or a gzip of that folder) and thus the binaries shouldn't need to be downloaded off of one of our servers. But it looks like the old FlexJS script and now these scripts