On Wed, 26 Mar 2025 14:50:11 GMT, Alan Bateman <al...@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. So the suggestion would be that we could mark some files as upgradable which would exclude them from SHA checking? Or, check the sha but accept a diff while printing a warning? Would it maybe make sense/be possible to offer some re-hash functionality for using in 2nd step builds? ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/24190#issuecomment-2755284227
