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 <rac...@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
