On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 17:31:37 GMT, Alexey Semenyuk <asemen...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Yes, I feared this might be a concern. If we change how `jpackage` defines >> `ALL-DEFAULT` we could reduce it. The remaining use would be the case for >> issuing a warning for missing `jmods` directory, for which it's probably not >> worth keeping the dependency. >> >> Input from `jpackage` devs would be appreciated. > >> If we change how jpackage defines ALL-DEFAULT we could reduce it > > I agree. jpackage can define ` ALL-DEFAULT` using public API, no need to use > internal API. @alexeysemenyukoracle Do you mean it would be OK to re-define `ALL-DEFAULT` to not include `jdk.jlink` for runtime images? Would that be OK in general for `jpackage`? ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22644#discussion_r1876420326
