You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@royale.apache.org by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> on 2018/03/21 15:03:27 UTC
Change Planning for correct sha512 checksum files
Hi -
I’ve done an analysis of the source code and build scripts for the proper change for sha512 checksums and extensions.
Changes appear to be limited to Royale-asjs and Royale-compiler. Is this correct? In asjs the extension is currently SHA-512 and in compiler it is still MD5. The result will be that all artifacts will have SHA-512 with an sha512 extension.
What branches should I change? Develop?
In asjs changes need to be made to build.xml, ApproveRoyale.xml, and releasecandidate.xml?
In compiler changes need to be made to build.xml and ApproveFalcon.xml?
In compiler no changes for dependencies are required in any of the download.xml at this time. Changes may be needed later should we upgrade an Apache dependency that will no longer have a MD5.
Regards,
Dave
Re: Change Planning for correct sha512 checksum files
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
HI Dave,
Don't worry about Maven. We use Maven to build Maven artifacts for the central Apache repo which can't handle SHA-512 so we are staying with the .sha1 files Maven currently produces. When I build Maven, I use a clean repo. Maven's Rat will choke on Ant build artifacts. Maven clean only knows how to clean Maven artifacts, not Ant artifacts. If you run "ant super-clean" you should be able to then run Maven, but I just keep separate working copies.
The Ant scripts then take Maven source artifacts for each of the 3 repos, or the 3 repo working copies and build a final combined source and binary artifact that goes up on dist.a.o. That's the piece that can have SHA-512. And your list of what files needed to be changed looked correct to me.
Sorry that you wasted time on the Maven stuff.
HTH,
-Alex
From: Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>>
Reply-To: <de...@royale.apache.org>>
Date: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 12:09 PM
To: <de...@royale.apache.org>>
Subject: Re: Change Planning for correct sha512 checksum files
Hi -
On Mar 21, 2018, at 12:51 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>> wrote:
Hi -
So, I’m working on this.
I did an ant all as a first step. That works fine. Now I am doing a ‘mvn clean install’ which absent documentation would be an expected thing to do. I am running into Rat Check errors! Something is wrong with how these have been setup.
First I had trouble with swfobject.js which has an MIT license but not in a form that RAT recognizes. Reasonable to exclude.
Second I have trouble with framework and here we have five errors. Two of these come from a third party in/flat-ui_2_2.zip - they aren’t directly our project but we are scanning for licenses? The other three are “*.ser” for local, windows and macOS fonts.
Added to the excludes and made it a little further then I get this:
[ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.apache.royale.compiler:royale-maven-plugin:0.9.3-SNAPSHOT:compile-as (default-compile-as) on project Core: Could not resolve dependencies for project org.apache.royale.framework:Core:swc:0.9.3-SNAPSHOT: Could not find artifact com.adobe.air.framework:airglobal:swc:20.0 in apache-release (https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases) -> [Help 1]
How do I resolve this? Do I need to download Air and where do I find this?
OK - I’m doing it in the wrong order and I found this page https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki/Build-Apache-Royale-with-Maven
The other page https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki/Building-From-Source ought to refer to it rather than saying something is needed.
It makes me wonder about Ant vs. Maven.
Regards,
Dave
So, I’m down this rabbit hole. Any thoughts? Any instructions for Maven?
Regards,
Dave
On Mar 21, 2018, at 8:21 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>> wrote:
Hi Dave,
Thanks for doing this. Your analysis is correct, however, you don't have to worry about Royale-compiler for now unless you want to. We are not currently using the Royale-compiler scripts to create artifacts, only royale-asjs. As you guessed, changing only the develop branch in royale-asjs should be sufficient.
Thanks,
-Alex
From: Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>>
Reply-To: <de...@royale.apache.org>>
Date: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 7:03 AM
To: <de...@royale.apache.org>>
Subject: Change Planning for correct sha512 checksum files
Hi -
I’ve done an analysis of the source code and build scripts for the proper change for sha512 checksums and extensions.
* Changes appear to be limited to Royale-asjs and Royale-compiler. Is this correct? In asjs the extension is currently SHA-512 and in compiler it is still MD5. The result will be that all artifacts will have SHA-512 with an sha512 extension.
* What branches should I change? Develop?
* In asjs changes need to be made to build.xml, ApproveRoyale.xml, and releasecandidate.xml?
* In compiler changes need to be made to build.xml and ApproveFalcon.xml?
* In compiler no changes for dependencies are required in any of the download.xml at this time. Changes may be needed later should we upgrade an Apache dependency that will no longer have a MD5.
Regards,
Dave
Re: Change Planning for correct sha512 checksum files
Posted by Piotr Zarzycki <pi...@gmail.com>.
Hi Dave,
In theory Maven should be able to download playerglobal on his own, but for
some reason it's not always happen. If I run into that issue I'm
downloading playerglobal manually [1] and copy it in that
location: .m2\repository\com\adobe\flash\framework\playerglobal\20.0\playerglobal-20.0.swc.
In case of airglobal it will be:
.m2\repository\com\adobe\air\framework\airglobal\20.0\airglobal-20.0.swc
and I'm taking it from Apache Flex SDK
which frameworks\libs\air\airglobal.swc.
You can probably download AIR separately and take that file from there.
I've mentioned about playerglobal because you may run into the issue with
it after that step.
[1]
https://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/installers/archive/playerglobal/playerglobal20_0.swc
Thanks, Piotr
2018-03-21 21:09 GMT+01:00 Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>:
> Hi -
>
> On Mar 21, 2018, at 12:51 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Hi -
>
> So, I’m working on this.
>
> I did an ant all as a first step. That works fine. Now I am doing a ‘mvn
> clean install’ which absent documentation would be an expected thing to do.
> I am running into Rat Check errors! Something is wrong with how these have
> been setup.
>
> First I had trouble with swfobject.js which has an MIT license but not in
> a form that RAT recognizes. Reasonable to exclude.
>
> Second I have trouble with framework and here we have five errors. Two of
> these come from a third party in/flat-ui_2_2.zip - they aren’t directly our
> project but we are scanning for licenses? The other three are “*.ser” for
> local, windows and macOS fonts.
>
>
> Added to the excludes and made it a little further then I get this:
>
> [*ERROR*] Failed to execute goal org.apache.royale.compiler:
> royale-maven-plugin:0.9.3-SNAPSHOT:compile-as *(default-compile-as)* on
> project Core: *Could not resolve dependencies for project
> org.apache.royale.framework:Core:swc:0.9.3-SNAPSHOT: Could not find
> artifact com.adobe.air.framework:airglobal:swc:20.0 in apache-release
> (https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases
> <https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases>)* -> *[Help
> 1]*
>
> How do I resolve this? Do I need to download Air and where do I find this?
>
> OK - I’m doing it in the wrong order and I found this page
> https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki/Build-Apache-Royale-with-Maven
>
> The other page https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki/
> Building-From-Source ought to refer to it rather than saying something is
> needed.
>
> It makes me wonder about Ant vs. Maven.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
> So, I’m down this rabbit hole. Any thoughts? Any instructions for Maven?
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
> On Mar 21, 2018, at 8:21 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> Thanks for doing this. Your analysis is correct, however, you don't have
> to worry about Royale-compiler for now unless you want to. We are not
> currently using the Royale-compiler scripts to create artifacts, only
> royale-asjs. As you guessed, changing only the develop branch in
> royale-asjs should be sufficient.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> From: Dave Fisher <dave2wave@comcast.net<mailto:dave2wave@comcast.net
> <da...@comcast.net>>>
> Reply-To: <dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org
> <de...@royale.apache.org>>>
> Date: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 7:03 AM
> To: <dev@royale.apache.org<mailto:dev@royale.apache.org
> <de...@royale.apache.org>>>
> Subject: Change Planning for correct sha512 checksum files
>
> Hi -
>
> I’ve done an analysis of the source code and build scripts for the proper
> change for sha512 checksums and extensions.
>
> * Changes appear to be limited to Royale-asjs and Royale-compiler. Is
> this correct? In asjs the extension is currently SHA-512 and in compiler it
> is still MD5. The result will be that all artifacts will have SHA-512 with
> an sha512 extension.
> * What branches should I change? Develop?
> * In asjs changes need to be made to build.xml, ApproveRoyale.xml, and
> releasecandidate.xml?
> * In compiler changes need to be made to build.xml and ApproveFalcon.xml?
> * In compiler no changes for dependencies are required in any of the
> download.xml at this time. Changes may be needed later should we upgrade an
> Apache dependency that will no longer have a MD5.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>
>
>
--
Piotr Zarzycki
Patreon: *https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki
<https://www.patreon.com/piotrzarzycki>*
Re: Change Planning for correct sha512 checksum files
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Hi -
> On Mar 21, 2018, at 12:51 PM, Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Hi -
>
> So, I’m working on this.
>
> I did an ant all as a first step. That works fine. Now I am doing a ‘mvn clean install’ which absent documentation would be an expected thing to do. I am running into Rat Check errors! Something is wrong with how these have been setup.
>
> First I had trouble with swfobject.js which has an MIT license but not in a form that RAT recognizes. Reasonable to exclude.
>
> Second I have trouble with framework and here we have five errors. Two of these come from a third party in/flat-ui_2_2.zip - they aren’t directly our project but we are scanning for licenses? The other three are “*.ser” for local, windows and macOS fonts.
Added to the excludes and made it a little further then I get this:
[ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.apache.royale.compiler:royale-maven-plugin:0.9.3-SNAPSHOT:compile-as (default-compile-as) on project Core: Could not resolve dependencies for project org.apache.royale.framework:Core:swc:0.9.3-SNAPSHOT: Could not find artifact com.adobe.air.framework:airglobal:swc:20.0 in apache-release (https://repository.apache.org/content/repositories/releases) -> [Help 1]
How do I resolve this? Do I need to download Air and where do I find this?
OK - I’m doing it in the wrong order and I found this page https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki/Build-Apache-Royale-with-Maven <https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki/Build-Apache-Royale-with-Maven>
The other page https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki/Building-From-Source <https://github.com/apache/royale-asjs/wiki/Building-From-Source> ought to refer to it rather than saying something is needed.
It makes me wonder about Ant vs. Maven.
Regards,
Dave
>
> So, I’m down this rabbit hole. Any thoughts? Any instructions for Maven?
>
> Regards,
> Dave
>
>> On Mar 21, 2018, at 8:21 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> Thanks for doing this. Your analysis is correct, however, you don't have to worry about Royale-compiler for now unless you want to. We are not currently using the Royale-compiler scripts to create artifacts, only royale-asjs. As you guessed, changing only the develop branch in royale-asjs should be sufficient.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Alex
>>
>> From: Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>>
>> Reply-To: <de...@royale.apache.org>>
>> Date: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 7:03 AM
>> To: <de...@royale.apache.org>>
>> Subject: Change Planning for correct sha512 checksum files
>>
>> Hi -
>>
>> I’ve done an analysis of the source code and build scripts for the proper change for sha512 checksums and extensions.
>>
>> * Changes appear to be limited to Royale-asjs and Royale-compiler. Is this correct? In asjs the extension is currently SHA-512 and in compiler it is still MD5. The result will be that all artifacts will have SHA-512 with an sha512 extension.
>> * What branches should I change? Develop?
>> * In asjs changes need to be made to build.xml, ApproveRoyale.xml, and releasecandidate.xml?
>> * In compiler changes need to be made to build.xml and ApproveFalcon.xml?
>> * In compiler no changes for dependencies are required in any of the download.xml at this time. Changes may be needed later should we upgrade an Apache dependency that will no longer have a MD5.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>
Re: Change Planning for correct sha512 checksum files
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Hi -
So, I’m working on this.
I did an ant all as a first step. That works fine. Now I am doing a ‘mvn clean install’ which absent documentation would be an expected thing to do. I am running into Rat Check errors! Something is wrong with how these have been setup.
First I had trouble with swfobject.js which has an MIT license but not in a form that RAT recognizes. Reasonable to exclude.
Second I have trouble with framework and here we have five errors. Two of these come from a third party in/flat-ui_2_2.zip - they aren’t directly our project but we are scanning for licenses? The other three are “*.ser” for local, windows and macOS fonts.
So, I’m down this rabbit hole. Any thoughts? Any instructions for Maven?
Regards,
Dave
> On Mar 21, 2018, at 8:21 AM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote:
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> Thanks for doing this. Your analysis is correct, however, you don't have to worry about Royale-compiler for now unless you want to. We are not currently using the Royale-compiler scripts to create artifacts, only royale-asjs. As you guessed, changing only the develop branch in royale-asjs should be sufficient.
>
> Thanks,
> -Alex
>
> From: Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>>
> Reply-To: <de...@royale.apache.org>>
> Date: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 7:03 AM
> To: <de...@royale.apache.org>>
> Subject: Change Planning for correct sha512 checksum files
>
> Hi -
>
> I’ve done an analysis of the source code and build scripts for the proper change for sha512 checksums and extensions.
>
> * Changes appear to be limited to Royale-asjs and Royale-compiler. Is this correct? In asjs the extension is currently SHA-512 and in compiler it is still MD5. The result will be that all artifacts will have SHA-512 with an sha512 extension.
> * What branches should I change? Develop?
> * In asjs changes need to be made to build.xml, ApproveRoyale.xml, and releasecandidate.xml?
> * In compiler changes need to be made to build.xml and ApproveFalcon.xml?
> * In compiler no changes for dependencies are required in any of the download.xml at this time. Changes may be needed later should we upgrade an Apache dependency that will no longer have a MD5.
>
> Regards,
> Dave
Re: Change Planning for correct sha512 checksum files
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
Hi Dave,
Thanks for doing this. Your analysis is correct, however, you don't have to worry about Royale-compiler for now unless you want to. We are not currently using the Royale-compiler scripts to create artifacts, only royale-asjs. As you guessed, changing only the develop branch in royale-asjs should be sufficient.
Thanks,
-Alex
From: Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>>
Reply-To: <de...@royale.apache.org>>
Date: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 7:03 AM
To: <de...@royale.apache.org>>
Subject: Change Planning for correct sha512 checksum files
Hi -
I’ve done an analysis of the source code and build scripts for the proper change for sha512 checksums and extensions.
* Changes appear to be limited to Royale-asjs and Royale-compiler. Is this correct? In asjs the extension is currently SHA-512 and in compiler it is still MD5. The result will be that all artifacts will have SHA-512 with an sha512 extension.
* What branches should I change? Develop?
* In asjs changes need to be made to build.xml, ApproveRoyale.xml, and releasecandidate.xml?
* In compiler changes need to be made to build.xml and ApproveFalcon.xml?
* In compiler no changes for dependencies are required in any of the download.xml at this time. Changes may be needed later should we upgrade an Apache dependency that will no longer have a MD5.
Regards,
Dave