> On Jan 15, 2019, at 10:25 AM, Rachel Greenham <[email protected]> > wrote: > > ... simply that you don't *want* jpackage's jdk to be in your path, you don't > want it to be the default, you *only* want it to run jpackage *itself*, in > create-image using --runtime-image pointing to your already jlinked runtime > image using your usual JDK; then in create-installer, using --app-image to > point to the image created in create-image. In all other respects you build > your application with your usual JDK, this one is *just* for running > jpackage, and only exists at all because jpackage isn't ready to go in the > JDK proper yet. > >
Ah, well I had also sort of thought it would be a good idea to try my own app on something more bleeding edge. There are some things broken I need to address. But unless you have problems with something in the new release on default command line usage it seems you can easily control version in other scenarios. > That's how it's working for me anyway. :-) The above currently works for me. Different people have different preferences for how things work. > > I wonder if it would be easier if, while we're in this packager gap, to > provide jpackage as a jlinked app image rather than a full jdk? Is that > possible? Not sure on that. > > -- > Rachel
