That sounds like a good idea. Alan
> On May 16, 2018, at 10:08 AM, Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> > wrote: > > The javapackager was removed from the Oracle JDK along with JavaFX (and has > never been part of OpenJDK). It isn't included with the standalone JavaFX > bundles, and doesn't really fit in a standalone FX release. > > We are looking at the possibility of providing a replacement packaging tool > in OpenJDK. > > -- Kevin > > On 5/15/2018 3:16 PM, Alan Snyder wrote: >> Where does java packager fit in this? >> >> >>> On May 15, 2018, at 2:59 PM, Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushfo...@oracle.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> I wanted to update you on the progress of the last couple weeks on the >>> OpenJFX project: >>> >>> 1. As mentioned last week, we now have EA builds of OpenJFX 11 on java.net >>> [1]. We intend to update this roughly weekly. Currently the build numbers >>> match the corresponding JDK build number, but that will not necessarily be >>> the case going forward, so don't assume that they are in sync. >>> >>> 2. Barring any build or staging issues, this week's OpenJFX 11 EA build >>> will include the jmods as mentioned earlier [2] [3] >>> >>> 3. JavaFX has been removed from JDK 11 as of this week. Starting with >>> jdk-11+14, early access builds of JDK 11 will not include JavaFX. >>> >>> 4. After jdk-11+14 is posted on java.net, and FX is no longer included in >>> JDK 11, we will start using openjfx-11 as the fix version in JBS to >>> distinguish it from JDK 11. We still expect to do a release of JavaFX 11 >>> around the same time as JDK 11, but using a different release number will >>> help track the actual content of JavaFX 11 separately from JDK 11. >>> >>> 5. Once this settles down, possibly later this week, I hope to restart the >>> discussion about OpenJFX policies, etc. I also hope to be a bit more >>> responsive over the coming days / weeks than I have been for the last 3-4 >>> weeks. Getting the standalone OpenJFX working and removing JavaFX from the >>> JDK was quite time consuming as you can probably imagine. >>> >>> If you have any general comments or questions about any of this, please >>> reply to this thread. We may want to split out more detailed discussions >>> into their own thread to make it easier to follow. >>> >>> -- Kevin >>> >>> [1] http://jdk.java.net/openjfx/ >>> >>> [2] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/openjfx-dev/2018-May/021856.html >>> [3] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8202368 >>> >
