On 18/09/2014 18:16, Danno Ferrin wrote:
On the javapacakger (javafxpackager) side of the house we dodge this by not 
using the symlinked JLI.

The JDK as it is installed installs a symlink to the libjli.dylib in 
...app/Contents/MacOS is actually a symlink.  I don't know if you copy it if it 
will still work, it may want to live in 
...app/Contents/Home/jre/lib/jli/libjli.dylib.  This is referenced in the 
default info.plist

The way we dodge this for the javapackager is we create our own launch native 
that opens up the libjli from the location deep in the JRE.  And we don't ship 
the symlink.

I can confirm that javapackager 8u20 signs and launchers with 10.9.5, but I 
haven't tried to submit it to the app store since the signing requirements 
changes.

So I don't know how you launch, but the info.plist cannot refer to the 
symlinked libjli.dylib if it is symlinked, and it may not even be allowed to 
exist as a symlink in ...app/Contents/MacOS.  So if you can remove the symlink 
before signing that may help.
Im using a fork of Java Application Bundler from InfiniteKind - https://bitbucket.org/infinitekind/appbundler -Im not deploying to the appstore its just uploaded to my website.

So following your advice I found that libjli.dylib in Contents/PlugsIns/jdk1.8.0_20.jdk/Contents/MacOS pointed to ../Home/jre/lib/jli - replacing the symbolic link with a copy of the file has allowed the signing to work, and when installed the application stills seem to work, thankyou :)
'
I assume if it doesn't work then you'll have a problem with javafxpackager applications as well.

Any thoughts from dev team about removing this symbolic link in the jdk ?

Paul

Reply via email to