You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com> on 2012/02/29 01:07:46 UTC
Minor issue with current build scripts
Hi,
Found a few minor issue with the current build framework scripts. See:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-22
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-23
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-24
None of these would be too hard to investigate/fix so anyone wanting to get get their feet wet go for it. Worse case you'll learn about how the build scripts work along the way.
Also I don't think the clean target is cleaning up 100%. Anyone want to raise a JIRA issue for that and have a go a fixing it? Would be straight forward to fix.
Remember anyone can raise JIRA requests and submit patches it doesn't have to be one of the committers, or just me :-)
Thanks,
Justin
Re: Minor issue with current build scripts
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
Also note that just because the build scripts are capable of using later versions doesn't mean they have to by default.
Take a look at how I implements the flash player version change to see that in action. The script still defaults to 11.1 but you can select to use 10.2,10.3 or 11.2 if you desire.
Thanks,
Justin
Re: Minor issue with current build scripts
Posted by Om <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Just changing the build scripts alone are not sufficient.
> So add another JIRA issue for this.
>
>
Done. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-25
> > We need to verify and regress TLF 3.0 with the current Flex SDK code
> before we can
> > include it in our scripts.
> As long as it's not the default option I wouldn't have an issue with
> having it in the scripts. having the build script ready for a future change
> it not a bad thing in my books. eg FP 11.2 support I added the other day.
>
I am okay with it. I have created a 'required by' relationship for these
two JIRA tickets. Hopefully, that helps us remember...
>
> I was just trying to get some people other than me to take a look at the
> scripts and submit some patches not cause more roadblocks. Looks like I'll
> have to find something else :-)
>
You have inspired me to take a look at the build scripts :-)
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
Re: Minor issue with current build scripts
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Just changing the build scripts alone are not sufficient.
So add another JIRA issue for this.
> We need to verify and regress TLF 3.0 with the current Flex SDK code before we can
> include it in our scripts.
As long as it's not the default option I wouldn't have an issue with having it in the scripts. having the build script ready for a future change it not a bad thing in my books. eg FP 11.2 support I added the other day.
I was just trying to get some people other than me to take a look at the scripts and submit some patches not cause more roadblocks. Looks like I'll have to find something else :-)
Thanks,
Justin
Re: Minor issue with current build scripts
Posted by Om <bi...@gmail.com>.
Justin,
Just changing the build scripts alone are not sufficient. We need to
verify and regress TLF 3.0 with the current Flex SDK code before we can
include it in our scripts. As Alex mentioned in the "TLF and Flex" thread,
TLF sometimes changes in a way that needs code changes in the Flex SDK.
Conversely, if TLF is donated to Apache, we may get to make changes to TLF
directly to keep things smooth.
Thanks,
Om
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I don't believe projects that fall under the ASF banner can make
> > improvements or updates or references to non-ASF projects.
> I'm suggesting improving our build scripts not the TLF library.
>
> > I believe TLF is still an Adobe product, even the older version, and I
> > think, by "Building" TLF's source into a binary, it might become an
> issue.
> We are currently doing that with version 1.0 so linking to another version
> of the same product is the same I think.
>
> The code is here:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/tlf.adobe/
>
> And it's currently under a Mozilla Public Licence 1.1.
>
> This comes under Category B 3rd party licence.[1] My reading (which may
> be wrong) is that there is no issue in using the binary and as we are not
> modifying the source code we are not creating a derivate work.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> [1] http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
Re: Minor issue with current build scripts
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> I don't believe projects that fall under the ASF banner can make
> improvements or updates or references to non-ASF projects.
I'm suggesting improving our build scripts not the TLF library.
> I believe TLF is still an Adobe product, even the older version, and I
> think, by "Building" TLF's source into a binary, it might become an issue.
We are currently doing that with version 1.0 so linking to another version of the same product is the same I think.
The code is here:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/tlf.adobe/
And it's currently under a Mozilla Public Licence 1.1.
This comes under Category B 3rd party licence.[1] My reading (which may be wrong) is that there is no issue in using the binary and as we are not modifying the source code we are not creating a derivate work.
Thanks,
Justin
[1] http://www.apache.org/legal/3party.html
Re: Minor issue with current build scripts
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
On 2/28/12 4:33 PM, "Om" <bi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 4:30 PM, David Francis Buhler <davidbuhler@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>
>> I don't believe projects that fall under the ASF banner can make
>> improvements or updates or references to non-ASF projects.
>>
>> I believe TLF is still an Adobe product, even the older version, and I
>> think, by "Building" TLF's source into a binary, it might become an issue.
>>
>> I got a 130 on my LSAT, so Legal will have to chime in here.
>>
>>
> TLF is released under the "Mozilla Public License Version 1.1", which I
> believe is compatible with Apache's license. I never took an LSAT... so
> again - Legal needs to confirm if we are good here:-)
>
> Om
>
It is not that simple, otherwise, we'd have all the other Adobe code in
Apache a month ago.
--
Alex Harui
Flex SDK Team
Adobe Systems, Inc.
http://blogs.adobe.com/aharui
Re: Minor issue with current build scripts
Posted by Om <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 4:30 PM, David Francis Buhler <davidbuhler@gmail.com
> wrote:
> I don't believe projects that fall under the ASF banner can make
> improvements or updates or references to non-ASF projects.
>
> I believe TLF is still an Adobe product, even the older version, and I
> think, by "Building" TLF's source into a binary, it might become an issue.
>
> I got a 130 on my LSAT, so Legal will have to chime in here.
>
>
TLF is released under the "Mozilla Public License Version 1.1", which I
believe is compatible with Apache's license. I never took an LSAT... so
again - Legal needs to confirm if we are good here:-)
Om
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Justin Mclean <justin@classsoftware.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > > Should we hold off fixing
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-23?
> > >
> > > Last I heard, there was no decision on whether Adobe would donate TLF
> to
> > > ASF.
> >
> > I don't think the issue is will they donatate it or not. The framework
> > currently uses it. The issue is that the build script currently uses an
> old
> > (and potentially buggy) version of it.
> >
> > From memory there a memory leak directly related to using OSMF 1.0 in
> Flex
> > video players. (It's probably in the Adobe bug base somewhere).
> >
> > I can't see any reason not to try and fix it but perhaps that's just me?
> >
> > Justin
>
Re: Minor issue with current build scripts
Posted by David Francis Buhler <da...@gmail.com>.
I don't believe projects that fall under the ASF banner can make
improvements or updates or references to non-ASF projects.
I believe TLF is still an Adobe product, even the older version, and I
think, by "Building" TLF's source into a binary, it might become an issue.
I got a 130 on my LSAT, so Legal will have to chime in here.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 7:20 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > Should we hold off fixing https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-23?
> >
> > Last I heard, there was no decision on whether Adobe would donate TLF to
> > ASF.
>
> I don't think the issue is will they donatate it or not. The framework
> currently uses it. The issue is that the build script currently uses an old
> (and potentially buggy) version of it.
>
> From memory there a memory leak directly related to using OSMF 1.0 in Flex
> video players. (It's probably in the Adobe bug base somewhere).
>
> I can't see any reason not to try and fix it but perhaps that's just me?
>
> Justin
Re: Minor issue with current build scripts
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Should we hold off fixing https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-23 ?
>
> Last I heard, there was no decision on whether Adobe would donate TLF to
> ASF.
I don't think the issue is will they donatate it or not. The framework currently uses it. The issue is that the build script currently uses an old (and potentially buggy) version of it.
From memory there a memory leak directly related to using OSMF 1.0 in Flex video players. (It's probably in the Adobe bug base somewhere).
I can't see any reason not to try and fix it but perhaps that's just me?
Justin
Re: Minor issue with current build scripts
Posted by David Francis Buhler <da...@gmail.com>.
Should we hold off fixing https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-23 ?
Last I heard, there was no decision on whether Adobe would donate TLF to
ASF.
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 7:07 PM, Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Found a few minor issue with the current build framework scripts. See:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-22
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-23
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-24
>
> None of these would be too hard to investigate/fix so anyone wanting to
> get get their feet wet go for it. Worse case you'll learn about how the
> build scripts work along the way.
>
> Also I don't think the clean target is cleaning up 100%. Anyone want to
> raise a JIRA issue for that and have a go a fixing it? Would be straight
> forward to fix.
>
> Remember anyone can raise JIRA requests and submit patches it doesn't have
> to be one of the committers, or just me :-)
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
>
>