You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by Bastien ROUCARIES <ro...@gmail.com> on 2014/04/15 13:13:59 UTC
Be distribution friendly
Hi,
I plan to package flex for debian.
You are not really distribution friendly particularly for debian!
1. You use a monolithic build tree. It means that we should take a
take it all approach. It slow down the packaging work and render
review (by legal team) slow. Could be possible to have a modularized
approach ? I means that every jar in lib/ has it own package and we
could compile independantly, and does not need to source include them.
I am mainly interested on mxmlc not debugger.
2. Could be possible then to do not use and even get source needing
air/ Adobe Flash Player Content Debugger (it seems possible I compiled
mxmlc without it) ? It is not free and not suitable for distro.
3. Could be possible to use your packaged saxon/xerces/javacc/battikk
and so on. If not could you document why and include patch from
upstream (as a distro we could include it on your package).
4. Could be possible to use joola for playerglobal [1] see also
tamarin project [2]
Thank you very much
Bastien
PS: I have openned https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-34221
[1] https://github.com/CoreMedia/jangaroo-libs/tree/master/jooflash/src/main/joo/flash
[2] https://github.com/mozilla/shumway/issues/982
Re: Be distribution friendly
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 4/16/14 3:42 AM, "Bastien ROUCARIES" <ro...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>And for batik you need I suppose to convert batick format to imageio.
>In this case you could use
>http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/com.twelvemonkeys.imageio/twelvemonkeys-
>imageio-batik
>
>Does it suit to your need ?
I don't think we need imageio, but I could be wrong. I don't know this
code that well.
-Alex
Re: Be distribution friendly
Posted by Bastien ROUCARIES <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> I don't know anything about Debian packaging, but I'm not clear how this
> helps the Apache Flex community, so I'm not thinking this would be a
> priority. However the source is open and you are welcome to run your own
> build script to generate whatever it is you need. And we'll try to answer
> questions.
>
> I believe we take some version of Batik and Velocity and inject some
> changes to it. There isn't an official document, but the changes or
> modified files are in our repository. Examine the build scripts to see
> what is being done. Better yet, if you have the time and motivation to
> propose changes to Batik and Velocity so we can have our changes applied
> to the latest versions or, more likely, change Batik and Velocity so our
> needs can be more of a plug-in/add-on, that would benefit Apache Flex and
> we would be more inclined to switch to more recent versions of those
> libraries. It just isn't a priority for us at this time.
And for batik you need I suppose to convert batick format to imageio.
In this case you could use
http://mvnrepository.com/artifact/com.twelvemonkeys.imageio/twelvemonkeys-imageio-batik
Does it suit to your need ?
Bastien
>
> Regarding not using player global, it might be worth verifying that the
> Flash/AIR runtime licenses don't place restrictions on how you build your
> SWFs.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 4/15/14 9:16 AM, "Bastien ROUCARIES" <ro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Le 15 avr. 2014 17:42, "Tom Chiverton" <tc...@extravision.com> a écrit :
>>>
>>> On 15/04/14 16:36, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Some part of LaTex use flash in order to include video in pdf
>>presentation.
>>>
>>> OK, and this component is already being distributed, but can't advertise
>>it's dependency on Flex because Apache Flex isn't in Debian ?
>>
>>No we should remove it because de do not build against source. It ils our
>>social contract.
>>> So I don't see why you need to make a Debian-ised Apache Flex made up of
>>lots of other dependencies ? I don't expect Apache Flex will work well
>>with
>>updated third party libraries, which is why we have the installer script.
>>>
>>> So an Debian wrapper around the existing Ant-based install scripts is
>>probably the way forward.
>>
>>No it is against our social contract and constitution. We do ont want to
>>remove about 20 packages si the only alternative is to get flex or a part
>>on it under debian.
>>
>>Bastien
>>>
>>> Tom
>
Re: Be distribution friendly
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
BTW, are you aware of the flex-falcon compiler project? It is packaged
separately and produces SWFs without hacking Batik and Velocity. We're
working on is 'alpha' release.
-Alex
On 4/16/14 9:53 AM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>
>On 4/16/14 3:16 AM, "Bastien ROUCARIES" <ro...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>>Thanks
>>
>>About xerces it seems that we could drop the patch. You only need it
>>in order to get line number information.
>>
>>By overriding setDocumentlocator you could get a locator object and
>>then call locator getLineNumber() method.
>>
>>Could you confirm ?
>I don't know the code well enough to confirm. I guess you'd have to try
>it out.
>
>-Alex
>
Re: Be distribution friendly
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 4/16/14 3:16 AM, "Bastien ROUCARIES" <ro...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Thanks
>
>About xerces it seems that we could drop the patch. You only need it
>in order to get line number information.
>
>By overriding setDocumentlocator you could get a locator object and
>then call locator getLineNumber() method.
>
>Could you confirm ?
I don't know the code well enough to confirm. I guess you'd have to try
it out.
-Alex
Re: Be distribution friendly
Posted by Bastien ROUCARIES <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> I don't know anything about Debian packaging, but I'm not clear how this
> helps the Apache Flex community, so I'm not thinking this would be a
> priority. However the source is open and you are welcome to run your own
> build script to generate whatever it is you need. And we'll try to answer
> questions.
Thanks
About xerces it seems that we could drop the patch. You only need it
in order to get line number information.
By overriding setDocumentlocator you could get a locator object and
then call locator getLineNumber() method.
Could you confirm ?
Bastien
> I believe we take some version of Batik and Velocity and inject some
> changes to it. There isn't an official document, but the changes or
> modified files are in our repository. Examine the build scripts to see
> what is being done. Better yet, if you have the time and motivation to
> propose changes to Batik and Velocity so we can have our changes applied
> to the latest versions or, more likely, change Batik and Velocity so our
> needs can be more of a plug-in/add-on, that would benefit Apache Flex and
> we would be more inclined to switch to more recent versions of those
> libraries. It just isn't a priority for us at this time.
>
> Regarding not using player global, it might be worth verifying that the
> Flash/AIR runtime licenses don't place restrictions on how you build your
> SWFs.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 4/15/14 9:16 AM, "Bastien ROUCARIES" <ro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Le 15 avr. 2014 17:42, "Tom Chiverton" <tc...@extravision.com> a écrit :
>>>
>>> On 15/04/14 16:36, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Some part of LaTex use flash in order to include video in pdf
>>presentation.
>>>
>>> OK, and this component is already being distributed, but can't advertise
>>it's dependency on Flex because Apache Flex isn't in Debian ?
>>
>>No we should remove it because de do not build against source. It ils our
>>social contract.
>>> So I don't see why you need to make a Debian-ised Apache Flex made up of
>>lots of other dependencies ? I don't expect Apache Flex will work well
>>with
>>updated third party libraries, which is why we have the installer script.
>>>
>>> So an Debian wrapper around the existing Ant-based install scripts is
>>probably the way forward.
>>
>>No it is against our social contract and constitution. We do ont want to
>>remove about 20 packages si the only alternative is to get flex or a part
>>on it under debian.
>>
>>Bastien
>>>
>>> Tom
>
Re: Be distribution friendly
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
I don't know anything about Debian packaging, but I'm not clear how this
helps the Apache Flex community, so I'm not thinking this would be a
priority. However the source is open and you are welcome to run your own
build script to generate whatever it is you need. And we'll try to answer
questions.
I believe we take some version of Batik and Velocity and inject some
changes to it. There isn't an official document, but the changes or
modified files are in our repository. Examine the build scripts to see
what is being done. Better yet, if you have the time and motivation to
propose changes to Batik and Velocity so we can have our changes applied
to the latest versions or, more likely, change Batik and Velocity so our
needs can be more of a plug-in/add-on, that would benefit Apache Flex and
we would be more inclined to switch to more recent versions of those
libraries. It just isn't a priority for us at this time.
Regarding not using player global, it might be worth verifying that the
Flash/AIR runtime licenses don't place restrictions on how you build your
SWFs.
-Alex
On 4/15/14 9:16 AM, "Bastien ROUCARIES" <ro...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Le 15 avr. 2014 17:42, "Tom Chiverton" <tc...@extravision.com> a écrit :
>>
>> On 15/04/14 16:36, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
>>>
>>> Some part of LaTex use flash in order to include video in pdf
>presentation.
>>
>> OK, and this component is already being distributed, but can't advertise
>it's dependency on Flex because Apache Flex isn't in Debian ?
>
>No we should remove it because de do not build against source. It ils our
>social contract.
>> So I don't see why you need to make a Debian-ised Apache Flex made up of
>lots of other dependencies ? I don't expect Apache Flex will work well
>with
>updated third party libraries, which is why we have the installer script.
>>
>> So an Debian wrapper around the existing Ant-based install scripts is
>probably the way forward.
>
>No it is against our social contract and constitution. We do ont want to
>remove about 20 packages si the only alternative is to get flex or a part
>on it under debian.
>
>Bastien
>>
>> Tom
Re: Be distribution friendly
Posted by Bastien ROUCARIES <ro...@gmail.com>.
Le 15 avr. 2014 17:42, "Tom Chiverton" <tc...@extravision.com> a écrit :
>
> On 15/04/14 16:36, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
>>
>> Some part of LaTex use flash in order to include video in pdf
presentation.
>
> OK, and this component is already being distributed, but can't advertise
it's dependency on Flex because Apache Flex isn't in Debian ?
No we should remove it because de do not build against source. It ils our
social contract.
> So I don't see why you need to make a Debian-ised Apache Flex made up of
lots of other dependencies ? I don't expect Apache Flex will work well with
updated third party libraries, which is why we have the installer script.
>
> So an Debian wrapper around the existing Ant-based install scripts is
probably the way forward.
No it is against our social contract and constitution. We do ont want to
remove about 20 packages si the only alternative is to get flex or a part
on it under debian.
Bastien
>
> Tom
Re: Be distribution friendly
Posted by Tom Chiverton <tc...@extravision.com>.
On 15/04/14 16:36, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> Some part of LaTex use flash in order to include video in pdf presentation.
OK, and this component is already being distributed, but can't advertise
it's dependency on Flex because Apache Flex isn't in Debian ?
So I don't see why you need to make a Debian-ised Apache Flex made up of
lots of other dependencies ? I don't expect Apache Flex will work well
with updated third party libraries, which is why we have the installer
script.
So an Debian wrapper around the existing Ant-based install scripts is
probably the way forward.
Tom
Re: Be distribution friendly
Posted by Bastien ROUCARIES <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:32 PM, Tom Chiverton <tc...@extravision.com> wrote:
> On 15/04/14 16:22, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
>>
>> main in order to compile some part of latex. So we need to compile
>
> What has Latex got to do with Apache Flex ? We're not
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flex_lexical_analyser :-)
Some part of LaTex use flash in order to include video in pdf presentation.
We have other use of flex like for instance compiling test case of
lightspark and a few javascript library that use some flash file we
could not compile
>
> Tom
Re: Be distribution friendly
Posted by Tom Chiverton <tc...@extravision.com>.
On 15/04/14 16:22, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> main in order to compile some part of latex. So we need to compile
What has Latex got to do with Apache Flex ? We're not
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flex_lexical_analyser :-)
Tom
Re: Be distribution friendly
Posted by Bastien ROUCARIES <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 5:14 PM, Tom Chiverton <tc...@extravision.com> wrote:
> On 15/04/14 14:21, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
>>
>> and set flex in the main archive that is we want to be able to compile
>> with free tools/source in order to get in the main archive. Fedora
>
> I don't think you have to be able to compile from all-free sources in order
> to have Flex in Debian, but I maybe wrong.
I do not need in order to get in non free, but in this case we need in
main in order to compile some part of latex. So we need to compile
from all-free sources.
Bastien
> Tom
Re: Be distribution friendly
Posted by Tom Chiverton <tc...@extravision.com>.
On 15/04/14 14:21, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> and set flex in the main archive that is we want to be able to compile
> with free tools/source in order to get in the main archive. Fedora
I don't think you have to be able to compile from all-free sources in
order to have Flex in Debian, but I maybe wrong.
Tom
Re: Be distribution friendly
Posted by Bastien ROUCARIES <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Tom Chiverton <tc...@extravision.com> wrote:
> On 15/04/14 12:13, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
>>
>> I plan to package flex for debian.
>
> Awesome ! One of the reasons I wanted to test the new Ant-based installer
> for this was it would greatly simplify doing this.
> You could potentially do what the Flash plugin installer does, and popup a
> message asking to agree to the terms.
> If the Debian package depended on ant and the JVM, then you'd be able to
> execute the install task on behalf of the user easily.
No the goal is to compile flash file from debian archive. This
solution is not possible at least for now. We want to use apt tools
and set flex in the main archive that is we want to be able to compile
with free tools/source in order to get in the main archive. Fedora
have the same goals so no we should only use free sofware.
Bastien
> Tom
Re: Be distribution friendly
Posted by Bastien ROUCARIES <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Christofer Dutz
<ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
> I was simply refering to the previous post about platform independent installer that is pretty distribution friendly (At least it should be).
> I didnÄt quite grasp the original problem you were having though.
The problem is that it does not suit to your need. We need to rebuild
from source a few flash file or to complitly remove part of our
distribution.
Using a installer like thus does not fullfill your social contract (it
must be rebuilt from source).
We appreciate your effort but we want to compile from source flex (at
least mxml).
Bastien
AW: Be distribution friendly
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
I was simply refering to the previous post about platform independent installer that is pretty distribution friendly (At least it should be).
I didnÄt quite grasp the original problem you were having though.
Chris
________________________________________
Von: Bastien ROUCARIES <ro...@gmail.com>
Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. April 2014 15:22
An: dev
Betreff: Re: Be distribution friendly
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Christofer Dutz
<ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
> On The ApacheCon Barcamp we were discussing that some projects would really like to make it easier for users to install their projects.
> It seems that my comment on us having implemented an Ant based installer for Flex has astonished quite a lot of people. Perhaps we should share this feature with other Apache Projects ... there seems to be a demand for something like this.
I do not understand how it is related with my demand. Care to explain.
Thanks
Bastien
> Chris
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: Tom Chiverton <tc...@extravision.com>
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. April 2014 14:15
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Be distribution friendly
>
> On 15/04/14 12:13, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
>> I plan to package flex for debian.
> Awesome ! One of the reasons I wanted to test the new Ant-based
> installer for this was it would greatly simplify doing this.
> You could potentially do what the Flash plugin installer does, and popup
> a message asking to agree to the terms.
> If the Debian package depended on ant and the JVM, then you'd be able to
> execute the install task on behalf of the user easily.
>
> Tom
Re: Be distribution friendly
Posted by Bastien ROUCARIES <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Christofer Dutz
<ch...@c-ware.de> wrote:
> On The ApacheCon Barcamp we were discussing that some projects would really like to make it easier for users to install their projects.
> It seems that my comment on us having implemented an Ant based installer for Flex has astonished quite a lot of people. Perhaps we should share this feature with other Apache Projects ... there seems to be a demand for something like this.
I do not understand how it is related with my demand. Care to explain.
Thanks
Bastien
> Chris
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: Tom Chiverton <tc...@extravision.com>
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. April 2014 14:15
> An: dev@flex.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Be distribution friendly
>
> On 15/04/14 12:13, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
>> I plan to package flex for debian.
> Awesome ! One of the reasons I wanted to test the new Ant-based
> installer for this was it would greatly simplify doing this.
> You could potentially do what the Flash plugin installer does, and popup
> a message asking to agree to the terms.
> If the Debian package depended on ant and the JVM, then you'd be able to
> execute the install task on behalf of the user easily.
>
> Tom
AW: Be distribution friendly
Posted by Christofer Dutz <ch...@c-ware.de>.
On The ApacheCon Barcamp we were discussing that some projects would really like to make it easier for users to install their projects.
It seems that my comment on us having implemented an Ant based installer for Flex has astonished quite a lot of people. Perhaps we should share this feature with other Apache Projects ... there seems to be a demand for something like this.
Chris
________________________________________
Von: Tom Chiverton <tc...@extravision.com>
Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. April 2014 14:15
An: dev@flex.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Be distribution friendly
On 15/04/14 12:13, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> I plan to package flex for debian.
Awesome ! One of the reasons I wanted to test the new Ant-based
installer for this was it would greatly simplify doing this.
You could potentially do what the Flash plugin installer does, and popup
a message asking to agree to the terms.
If the Debian package depended on ant and the JVM, then you'd be able to
execute the install task on behalf of the user easily.
Tom
Re: Be distribution friendly
Posted by Tom Chiverton <tc...@extravision.com>.
On 15/04/14 12:13, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
> I plan to package flex for debian.
Awesome ! One of the reasons I wanted to test the new Ant-based
installer for this was it would greatly simplify doing this.
You could potentially do what the Flash plugin installer does, and popup
a message asking to agree to the terms.
If the Debian package depended on ant and the JVM, then you'd be able to
execute the install task on behalf of the user easily.
Tom
Re: Be distribution friendly
Posted by Bastien ROUCARIES <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> 1. You use a monolithic build tree. It means that we should take a
>> take it all approach. It slow down the packaging work and render
>> review (by legal team) slow. Could be possible to have a modularized
>> approach ?
> Creating Apache releases for all of pieces would be a lot of work.
Yes I know but we could help. For me the first part will to compile
the swfdump and swfutils ? Does it suit ?
But in this case I must know the interaction with batik and other
external ressources.
>> 2. Could be possible then to do not use and even get source needing
>> air/ Adobe Flash Player Content Debugger
> It's only required to run the mustella tests - so wouldn't be needed for a package. It is of course very useful for debugging. AIR is not required unless you want to make desktop or mobile projects.
Nice could be documented somewhere ? For debian we need to purge this
king of files due to not being able to compile it.
>
>> 3. Could be possible to use your packaged saxon/xerces/javacc/battikk
>> and so on.
> I believe changes were made to these that couldn't be put into the original repos and they are now a couple of versions behind those repos.
Do you have documentation
>
>> 4. Could be possible to use joola for playerglobal [1] see also
>> tamarin project [2]
> Perhaps does anyone know if it work 100% and all unit tests pass etc?
No this is work in progress but they have implemented a lot of interface.
Thanks
Bastien
> Thanks,
> Justin
Re: Be distribution friendly
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> 1. You use a monolithic build tree. It means that we should take a
> take it all approach. It slow down the packaging work and render
> review (by legal team) slow. Could be possible to have a modularized
> approach ?
Creating Apache releases for all of pieces would be a lot of work.
> 2. Could be possible then to do not use and even get source needing
> air/ Adobe Flash Player Content Debugger
It's only required to run the mustella tests - so wouldn't be needed for a package. It is of course very useful for debugging. AIR is not required unless you want to make desktop or mobile projects.
> 3. Could be possible to use your packaged saxon/xerces/javacc/battikk
> and so on.
I believe changes were made to these that couldn't be put into the original repos and they are now a couple of versions behind those repos.
> 4. Could be possible to use joola for playerglobal [1] see also
> tamarin project [2]
Perhaps does anyone know if it work 100% and all unit tests pass etc?
Thanks,
Justin