On Mon, 24 Aug 2026 16:57:18 GMT, Marius Hanl <[email protected]> wrote:

> This is the continuation of the split of the Maven publishing made in 
> https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/1970.
> Since the `build.gradle` file had become so large, adding more Maven code was 
> out of question in the past.
> Thanks to the split, we can now quickly and easily add support for JavaFX 
> Sources, thereby significantly simplifying testing.
> 
> This can be tested by:
> 
> `./gradlew publishToMavenLocal -PMAVEN_PUBLISH=true -PMAVEN_VERSION=custom`
> 
> This will create a JavaFX version named 'custom' in your .m2 folder (under 
> `~/.m2/org/openjfx/javafx-XXX/custom`).
> The sources should be there as well now.
> 
> The original PR https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/2144 can not be reopened 
> because I force pushed it, see the bot comment here: 
> https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/2144#issuecomment-5398495316
> 
> ---------
> - [x] I confirm that I make this contribution in accordance with the [OpenJDK 
> Interim AI Policy](https://openjdk.org/legal/ai).

> * Is it intentional that the sources contain code for all platforms like in 
> `com.sun.glass.ui.<os>`
> * Should the sources jars contain the platform classifier? E.g. `linux` like 
> for the normal jars. Right now, the classifier is just `sources`

To answer both questions, yes this is intentional. There is only one `-sources` 
JAR for the published JavaFX versions right now, see: 
https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/openjfx/javafx-graphics/28-ea+12/

> * Should they be reproducible with preserveFileTimestamps = false and 
> reproducibleFileOrder = true?

Isn't this already the cases, when `SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH` is set?

> * Should the sources jar contain other resource files like .css files? Right 
> now it doesn't

Yes, changed it. Now also the `PNGs` from the controls are added too.

> * I guess the naming could be made more consistent, i.e. `modulePublication` 
> vs `modularPublication`

Good point, yes. Done.

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jfx/pull/2273#issuecomment-6710258007

Reply via email to