On the other hand, early access releases _are_ releases, and creating an installer from a jpackaged application doesn't seem far-fetched. Maybe we should version the DLLs appropriately, for example by including the build number.
On Fri, Jan 2, 2026 at 3:52 AM Christopher Schnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > Figured out the problem. We were shipping 26+ea-3 in the last version > and then bumped it to 26+ea-19. > > When distributing applications through an .msi, e.g. via jpackage, the > msi will by default only replace files if certain conditions are met > like the file version being different. > (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows/win32/msi/replacing-existing-files) > > Since all JavaFX ea releases are marked as v26.0.0.0 when taking a look > at the properties of the shipped JavaFX .dlls, the msi installer does > not guarantee that it will upgrade the older JavaFX dlls as they both > have the same version. That way, some people might end up with the wrong > dlls after an update. I am still not sure why this only happens to some > users though. > > I don't think this is a JavaFX issue really, more of an unfortunate > default behavior of msis.
