> On Aug 22, 2016, at 1:35 PM, Chris Hegarty <chris.hega...@oracle.com> wrote: > > >> On 22 Aug 2016, at 19:24, Steve Drach <steve.dr...@oracle.com> wrote: >>> >>> 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.
If a JAR file contains an empty directory, should `q` be considered as a concealed package in the base section? $ jar -t --file hi.jar META-INF/ META-INF/MANIFEST.MF module-info.class p/Hi.class q/ currently not: $ jar -d --file mr.jar hi requires mandated java.base conceals p Mandy
