Thanks Magnus, yeah it is still doing as it says on the "tin", so I think
i'm just being paranoid! I'll put a PR together for review, cheers
On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 10:49 AM Magnus Ihse Bursie <
magnus.ihse.bur...@oracle.com> wrote:
> On 2023-09-21 10:59, Andr
bootcycle builds to produce their JDK binaries.
>
> Switching the compiler to interim would help with the reproducibility
> issue. I would support that change. I don't think we can reasonably do
> something about the jar tool.
>
> /Erik
> On 9/20/23 08:12, Andrew Leonard
with the reproducibility
> issue. I would support that change. I don't think we can reasonably do
> something about the jar tool.
>
> /Erik
> On 9/20/23 08:12, Andrew Leonard wrote:
>
> Hi Magnus,
>
> So yes, jrt-fs.jar can be different between a normal build and a boot
lly a "test", and I suspect
most vendors will either just do a standard "product-images" build, or
perform their own bootcycle by doing two builds...
Cheers
Andrew
On Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 2:44 PM Magnus Ihse Bursie <
magnus.ihse.bur...@oracle.com> wrote:
> On 20
make files to see if a "Build JDK"
rebuild of jrt-fs.jar is
feasible.
Cheers
Andrew
On Tue, Sep 19, 2023 at 5:42 PM Alan Bateman
wrote:
> On 18/09/2023 14:51, Andrew Leonard wrote:
> > Thanks for the clarification Alan.
> >
> > To ensure the reproducibility of t
with the rest of the image in terms of what it is
compiled with.
Cheers
Andrew
On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 9:49 AM Alan Bateman
wrote:
> On 15/09/2023 09:09, Andrew Leonard wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > jrt-fs.jar is the only jar that is not built (or re-built) with the
> > "
Hi,
jrt-fs.jar is the only jar that is not built (or re-built) with the "Build
JDK", and I was wondering why?
To fully benefit from reproducible builds, would it not be more beneficial
to re-build it after "Build JDK" generation? Thereby ensuring all java code
is built based on the latest compiler
