On Tue, 20 May 2025 16:57:34 GMT, Alexey Semenyuk <asemen...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Fixed jpackage to produce valid Java runtimes based on description below: >> >> Definitions: >> >> - JDK bundle defined as bundle which contains "Contents/Home", >> "Contents/MacOS/libjli.dylib" and "Contents/Info.plist". >> - Signed JDK bundle contains all files as JDK bundle + >> "Contents/_CodeSignature". >> - JDK image defined as content of "Contents/Home". >> - Signed JDK image does not exist, since it cannot be signed as bundle. >> >> jpackage output based on input: >> >> 1. "--runtime-image" points to unsigned JDK bundle and --mac-sign is not >> provided: >> - jpackage will copy all files as is from provided path and run ad-hoc >> codesign. >> >> 2. "--runtime-image" points to unsigned JDK bundle and --mac-sign is >> provided: >> - jpackage will copy all files as is from provided path and run codesign >> with appropriate certificate based on same logic as we do for application >> image. >> >> 3. "--runtime-image" points to signed JDK bundle and --mac-sign is not >> provided: >> - jpackage will copy all files as is from provided path including >> "Contents/_CodeSignature" to preserve signing. >> >> 4. "--runtime-image" points to signed JDK bundle and --mac-sign is provided: >> - jpackage will copy all files as is from provided path including >> "Contents/_CodeSignature" and will re-sign bundle with appropriate >> certificate. >> >> 5. "--runtime-image" points to JDK image and --mac-sign is not provided: >> - jpackage will check for libjli.dylib presence in "lib" folder. >> - Create JDK bundle by putting all files from provided path to >> "Contents/Home", libjli.dylib from "lib" to "Contents/MacOS/libjli.dylib" >> and create default "Contents/Info.plist" similar to what we do for runtime >> in application image. >> - Ad-hoc signing will done. >> >> 6. "--runtime-image" points to JDK image and --mac-sign is provided: >> - 2 first steps from 5 and certificate signing will be done. > > src/jdk.jpackage/windows/classes/jdk/jpackage/internal/WinMsiBundler.java > line 199: > >> 197: } >> 198: return version; >> 199: }, > > I guess, this is a workaround for the case when the version comes from JDK's > release file. This is the wrong place for this workaround. It should be a > part of the code reading version from JDK's release file. Yes, this is workaround when the version comes from JDK's release file. In this case name will be customeJDK-25.0.0.0 for example if we change it when we read version form file. Other platform do not need it. Only PRODUCT_VERSION in MSI needs to be 2 or 4 components, so I think it is correct location for it. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25314#discussion_r2099140330
