<!DOCTYPE html><html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 7/29/25 08:16, Andrew Leonard wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:IA0PPF8870D55A12B1311A446CEE3A06717CA25A@IA0PPF8870D55A1.namprd15.prod.outlook.com">
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: Aptos, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Hi,</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: Aptos, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: Aptos, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
I’m looking for help on resolving this bug please (<a href="https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8363942" data-outlook-id="30e3289e-b6b4-4c1b-b62f-4dceb6ac4208" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8363942</a>),
that we see building Eclipse Temurin, whereby we build the
“exploded image(default)” target, then externally “sign” the
binaries, then “touch” the targets using “make -t” so they don’t
get re-built, then build the “images”…</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: Aptos, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
However, after recent jdk-25 changes in idk-25+26 (I think by
8349665), this process fails.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: Aptos, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
We’ve found a workaround by manually deleting the file
“create-main-targets-include” before calling make images, but
that doesn’t seem ideal.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: Aptos, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I've never used `make -t` so I'm not surprised it doesn't work
well with the OpenJDK build. We use a lot of meta targets and
tricks throughout the build, and I would expect things to behave
unexpectedly when using it. I'm curious why you think you need to
run `make -t` after the signing procedure? As long as none of the
signing operations are resetting the modification times on the
signed binaries to an earlier timestamp than the build produced,
and you didn't touch any other files or source files, then
rebuilding shouldn't overwrite any of the already built or signed
binaries. There can of course be bugs, and historically I'm sure
there have been, causing things to be rebuilt unnecessarily, so
with an approach like this I would definitely recommend adding a
verification step after the build that checks all binaries for
signatures.</p>
<p>Related to this, have you looked into
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8350801">https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8350801</a>? It was meant to make
external signing procedures easier to integrate with the build
system.</p>
<p>/Erik<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:IA0PPF8870D55A12B1311A446CEE3A06717CA25A@IA0PPF8870D55A1.namprd15.prod.outlook.com">
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: Aptos, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: Aptos, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Many thanks</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: Aptos, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Andrew</div>
<div>
Unless otherwise stated above:<br>
<br>
IBM United Kingdom Limited<br>
Registered in England and Wales with number 741598<br>
Registered office: Building C, IBM Hursley Office, Hursley Park
Road, Winchester, Hampshire SO21 2JN<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>