Re: RFR: 8345185: Update jpackage to not include service bindings by default [v5]

2025-01-08 Thread Severin Gehwolf
> Please review these changes to jpackage in light of [JEP > 493](https://openjdk.org/jeps/493). When this feature is enabled, then some > of the `jpackage` tests fail. The failures fall into the following categories: > > - `ALL-DEFAULT` notion from `jpackage` which includes all modules that exp

Re: RFR: 8345185: Update jpackage to not include service bindings by default [v4]

2025-01-07 Thread Alexey Semenyuk
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 14:05:19 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> Please review these changes to jpackage in light of [JEP >> 493](https://openjdk.org/jeps/493). When this feature is enabled, then some >> of the `jpackage` tests fail. The failures fall into the following >> categories: >> >> - `ALL-

Re: RFR: 8345185: Update jpackage to not include service bindings by default [v4]

2025-01-07 Thread pcoperatr
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 14:05:19 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> Please review these changes to jpackage in light of [JEP >> 493](https://openjdk.org/jeps/493). When this feature is enabled, then some >> of the `jpackage` tests fail. The failures fall into the following >> categories: >> >> - `ALL-

Re: RFR: 8345185: Update jpackage to not include service bindings by default [v4]

2025-01-07 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 14:05:19 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> Please review these changes to jpackage in light of [JEP >> 493](https://openjdk.org/jeps/493). When this feature is enabled, then some >> of the `jpackage` tests fail. The failures fall into the following >> categories: >> >> - `ALL-

Re: RFR: 8345185: Update jpackage to not include service bindings by default [v4]

2025-01-07 Thread Severin Gehwolf
> Please review these changes to jpackage in light of [JEP > 493](https://openjdk.org/jeps/493). When this feature is enabled, then some > of the `jpackage` tests fail. The failures fall into the following categories: > > - `ALL-DEFAULT` notion from `jpackage` which includes all modules that exp

Re: RFR: 8345185: Update jpackage to not include service bindings by default [v3]

2024-12-17 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 13:37:00 GMT, Alexey Semenyuk wrote: > Looks good. Thank you! Thanks for the review! - PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/22644#issuecomment-2548538306

Re: RFR: 8345185: Update jpackage to not include service bindings by default [v3]

2024-12-17 Thread Alexey Semenyuk
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 09:53:18 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> Please review these changes to jpackage in light of [JEP >> 493](https://openjdk.org/jeps/493). When this feature is enabled, then some >> of the `jpackage` tests fail. The failures fall into the following >> categories: >> >> - `ALL

Re: RFR: 8345185: Update jpackage to not include service bindings by default [v2]

2024-12-17 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 03:03:13 GMT, Alexey Semenyuk wrote: >> Severin Gehwolf has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a >> merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes >> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains seven additional >>

Re: RFR: 8345185: Update jpackage to not include service bindings by default [v3]

2024-12-17 Thread Severin Gehwolf
> Please review these changes to jpackage in light of [JEP > 493](https://openjdk.org/jeps/493). When this feature is enabled, then some > of the `jpackage` tests fail. The failures fall into the following categories: > > - `ALL-DEFAULT` notion from `jpackage` which includes all modules that exp

Re: RFR: 8345185: Update jpackage to not include service bindings by default [v2]

2024-12-16 Thread Alexey Semenyuk
On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 20:21:06 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> Please review these changes to jpackage in light of [JEP >> 493](https://openjdk.org/jeps/493). When this feature is enabled, then some >> of the `jpackage` tests fail. The failures fall into the following >> categories: >> >> - `ALL

Re: RFR: 8345185: Update jpackage to not include service bindings by default [v2]

2024-12-16 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 18:24:44 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> I meant the use of `jdk.internal.module.ModulePath` can be replaced with >> public API in `JLinkBundlerHelper.java`. Sorry for the confusion. >> >> Can test if jlink tool is available as an alternative to importing >> `jdk.tools.jlink.

Re: RFR: 8345185: Update jpackage to not include service bindings by default [v2]

2024-12-16 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 18:17:28 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: >> test/jdk/tools/jpackage/share/BasicTest.java line 323: >> >>> 321:return; >>> 322: } >>> 323: } >> >> The better alternative would be to use `@ParameterSupplier` annotation >> instead of the list of

Re: RFR: 8345185: Update jpackage to not include service bindings by default

2024-12-16 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Mon, 9 Dec 2024 12:57:22 GMT, Severin Gehwolf wrote: > Please review these changes to jpackage in light of [JEP > 493](https://openjdk.org/jeps/493). When this feature is enabled, then some > of the `jpackage` tests fail. The failures fall into the following categories: > > - `ALL-DEFAULT`

Re: RFR: 8345185: Update jpackage to not include service bindings by default [v2]

2024-12-16 Thread Severin Gehwolf
> Please review these changes to jpackage in light of [JEP > 493](https://openjdk.org/jeps/493). When this feature is enabled, then some > of the `jpackage` tests fail. The failures fall into the following categories: > > - `ALL-DEFAULT` notion from `jpackage` which includes all modules that exp

Re: RFR: 8345185: Update jpackage to not include service bindings by default

2024-12-16 Thread Severin Gehwolf
On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 18:12:29 GMT, Mandy Chung wrote: > JEP 343 & JEP 392 both specify that jpackage by default does not include > service providers unless `--bind-services` is included. This should be fixed > to match the JEP and there is no difference in behavior with a linkable > runtime or