Andy is looking into a change which should satisfy the requirement to be
able to produce an intermediate app-image (and later create a package
from an app-image), while also getting rid of the two sub-commands, and
making the building of the installer (package) the default.
The idea would be to get rid of the two sub-commands, making "jpackage"
do what "jpackage create-installer" does today, and add the ability to
create an app image as an alternative to a .deb, .rpm, etc.
Andy can provide more details, but I think this would be a good
alternative without the need for two separate tools, which necessarily
would share all of the code to build an application image.
He filed https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8225428 to explore this.
-- Kevin
On 6/6/2019 1:46 PM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote:
2019/6/5 16:09:11 -0700, Alan Snyder <fishgar...@cbfiddle.com>:
I haven’t used recent versions of this tool, but I have found it
essential to be able to modify the image before the final package is
created. There is no way that this tool can anticipate all of the
custom configuration that might be needed, and I do not want to
duplicate its ability to create an image and to build a package from
the image.
That’s a fair point.
It does suggest, however, that perhaps this should be two separate
tools -- one to create an OS-specific image, and another to create
an OS-specific package. They should work well together, of course,
but it’s not clear that they need to be merged into a single tool.
- Mark
