> On 22 Aug 2016, at 19:24, Steve Drach <steve.dr...@oracle.com> wrote: >> ... >>> It exists purely because another class in the same versioned directory >>> depends on it. If we are creating a versionedStream for the version that >>> the non-public class is in, it will be in finalNames, otherwise it won’t >>> be. I believe the code is correct here. >>> >>> New concealed packages can be added in a versioned section of the jar file >>> created by jar tool. Should classes in concealed packages be added to >>> finalNames or not? Or stated differently, for jlink, should a >>> versionedStream contain entries in concealed packages? >>> >> Er, I thought the plan was for the set of concealed packages to be the same. >> It's okay for the ConcealedPackages in the base section to include "empty" >> packages. > > I wasn’t involved with that decision. Chris wrote that code, perhaps he can > comment.
This surprises me, as I have the same recollection as Alan; no additional concealed packages are allowable in the versioned section. I just checked the jar tool, and it does NOT add any versioned specific concealed packages. -Chris.
