You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
As I described in #1997, Java's jpackage utility changed the default filename for the Debian package to drop the release number as the default. The Java issue describing what they did and why is here. They also added an option to jpackage, --linux-app-release, to have it include the release number optionally. To restore the original format, we would need to use that option and change Nightly to look for the correct filename.
I took the quick path to get our Nightly Build working again by changing Nightly to look for a name without the release field. If the Java issue correctly states the situation, we can leave it as it is now.
I am opening this issue so we can discuss restoring the release field if anyone feels that we should. It also documents why it was changed and states how to return to the previous behavior should that be desired or necessary in the future.
I would leave the DEB package name to the recommended default without the release-number. The latter is anyway only necessary if the packaging gets improved for the same software release version so that apt knows that an update of the installed package is due.
As I described in #1997, Java's jpackage utility changed the default filename for the Debian package to drop the release number as the default. The Java issue describing what they did and why is here. They also added an option to jpackage, --linux-app-release, to have it include the release number optionally. To restore the original format, we would need to use that option and change Nightly to look for the correct filename.
I took the quick path to get our Nightly Build working again by changing Nightly to look for a name without the release field. If the Java issue correctly states the situation, we can leave it as it is now.
I am opening this issue so we can discuss restoring the release field if anyone feels that we should. It also documents why it was changed and states how to return to the previous behavior should that be desired or necessary in the future.
Comments? @maehne? @BFH-ktt1?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: