On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 14:42:12 GMT, Severin Gehwolf <sgehw...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> I'll keep looking into this specific case. However, it sounds a bit > orthogonal to the patch at hand which I do believe we still need for the > original reasons mentioned (RPM changing binaries after the JDK build is long > done and the windows issue of the JDK build itself placing different *.pdb > files into the image than was present at jlink time). So perhaps we should > explore this in parallel? I think upgradable files is something we can deal with. I'm not sure yet on the PDB issue, need to think more about about the scenarios to see what might make sense. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24190#issuecomment-2754707569
