Comments on jpackage (JEP 343)

[Scott Palmer]

I use a very similar workflow, but I’m building for all platforms. I want the image to produce a simple zipped version of the app, and I want all the installer/bundles/packages as well. 

I also agree with all of the “would be nice to haves” - Particularly service/daemon support. 
I also agree with the recent comments here about getting back the user options support and having a way for args in the configure file to stay and be augmented by arguments added on the command line by the user. 

Scott

> On Sep 5, 2019, at 8:51 AM, Rachel Greenham <rachel at strangenoises.org> 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.
> 
> -- 
> Rachel