On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 09:04:30 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>>> Does that proposal sound good?
>>
>> That table is useful, I think it's right. No change to default behavior. If
>> someone configures with --enable-runtime-image then they get a JDK run-time
>> image that supports jlink (with some
On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 14:39:23 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> I've added a couple of `@requires jlink.packagedModules` (new with this
> patch) so that jlink tests don't start to fail with it.
Good, the `@requires jlink.packagedModules` make sense.
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.or
On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 17:41:55 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> (Doing that would of course mean that several existing jlink tests would need
> some changes, either to `@requires` or to remove the checks for the `jmods`
> directory)
I've added a couple of `@requires jlink.packagedModules` (new with thi
On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 19:10:22 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> > Does that proposal sound good?
>
> That table is useful, I think it's right. No change to default behavior. If
> someone configures with --enable-runtime-image then they get a JDK run-time
> image that supports jlink (with some limitatio
On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 19:10:22 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> I've read through most of the changes now. Overall I think it's looking good,
> just a few terminology and minor points that I'll add as comments.
@AlanBateman I don't see those comments. Should I?
-
PR Comment: https://git.op
On Tue, 4 Jun 2024 09:04:30 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
> > Does that proposal sound good?
>
> What you basically is saying is that the default value of `packaged-modules`
> should be `! runtime-link-image` (i.e. the inverse)?
Yes. **default** of the `packaged-modules` value being the key.
On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 19:10:22 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> Does that proposal sound good?
What you basically is saying is that the default value of `packaged-modules`
should be `! runtime-link-image` (i.e. the inverse)?
-
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14787#issuecomment
On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 15:40:10 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> Does that proposal sound good?
That table is useful, I think it's right. No change to default behavior. If
someone configures with --enable-runtime-image then they get a JDK run-time
image that supports jlink (with some limitations) but
On Mon, 3 Jun 2024 12:55:54 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> So I think we may have the wrong default. Yes, they are separate configure
> and jlink options but I'm wondering if it would be more sensible to
> opt-in(not opt-out) to keep the packaged modules when configured with
> --enable-runtime-lin
On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 17:41:55 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> Severin Gehwolf has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a
>> merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 110 commits:
>>
>> - Merge branch 'master' into jdk-8311302-jmodless-link
>> - Fix new line in jlink.propert
On Sun, 2 Jun 2024 17:41:55 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
> I've been looking through the changes. One thing that I'm wondering about is
> whether --generate-runtime-link-image should disable the keeping of packaged
> modules (set JLINK_KEEP_PACKAGED_MODULES to false). It seems surprising to
> use
On Wed, 22 May 2024 13:23:25 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
>> Please review this patch which adds a jlink mode to the JDK which doesn't
>> need the packaged modules being present. A.k.a run-time image based jlink.
>> Fundamentally this patch adds an option to use `jlink` even though your JDK
>>
> Please review this patch which adds a jlink mode to the JDK which doesn't
> need the packaged modules being present. A.k.a run-time image based jlink.
> Fundamentally this patch adds an option to use `jlink` even though your JDK
> install might not come with the packaged modules (directory `jm
13 matches
Mail list logo
