Comments on jpackage (JEP 343)

[Alexey Semenyuk]

Hi Rachel,

Thank you for your feedback. I created 
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8230668 record to track work on 
your suggestions.

- Alexey

On 9/5/2019 8:50 AM, Rachel Greenham wrote:
> (Sorry for non-threading, i read the digest)
>
> As you've been lacking feedback from people using the jpackage EA 
> builds, here's mine FWIW.
>
> I've been quiet because it's been working well enough for us. That 
> said, our needs and process probably simplify matters in that:
>
> 1. We're only producing Windows installers
> 2. We've been lucky in having patient clients during this 
> post-webstart, post-javapackager disruption.
> 3. We were happy to modify our versioning to match Windows standards
> 4. Our application is non-modular
> 5. We do it in three steps: jlink to make a JRE, then jpackage to make 
> an app image, then jpackage again to make both an exe and msi 
> installer based on that image. (client slow to reply which one they'd 
> actually prefer!) Not trying to do everything in one step.
>
> Since the fix that made new versions of our app correctly replace 
> older ones I've mostly just been testing new EA builds to make sure 
> they don't break it! They do sometimes, usually because of changes in 
> the parameter names, and of course we lost our Inno Setup 
> customisations. I haven't yet made any attempt to customise the EXE 
> setup installer since then.
>
> Would be nice:
>
> 1. For it to use the supplied app icon for the installer, or be able 
> to supply another specifically for the installer. For it to be shown 
> in the installer in some fashion. Other exe customisations of 
> straightforward branding and/or flags to control what questions 
> they're asked would be very nice.
> 2. For it to be able to sign the installer in the fashion of, or 
> actually using, signtool. (Ideally internalised as installing signtool 
> itself is a pain.) Currently that's an extra step after the installers 
> are built
>
> But I can wait for them, I want it in a release so I can use it via 
> ToolProvider rather than execing an external JDK. All the while it's 
> the way it is it massively complicates the build.
>
> Later would-be-nices, not for this desktop app, but ability to use it 
> to package background service-type apps, as a service for windows, 
> using launchd for osx, and systemd for linux.
>