-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 77
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Use JRE for binaries instead of JDK #2681
Comments
sure @HenrikJannsen I can have a look! |
starting work on this one |
@HenrikJannsen just did some initial tests, it looks like this is as easier as changing the urls to use jre instead of jdk. The download size is significant, but the final binaries doesn't get much of an improvement... shall I send a PR to discuss anyways? |
clarified the above on a matrix chat. |
I have to revert PR #2773 because the changes broke the release tasks. The release has been already delayed by more than a week and I don't want to delay the release further. |
Hi @alejandrogarcia83 , I'm surprised and sorry to hear that, saw you comment as well in #2773 (comment) Could you please be more specific, which release tasks were broken? Do you have any logs? I'm happy to give you a hand to fix this so we can include this substantial size improvement for the next release hopefully. |
Currently we package the same JDK version used for the build into the binaries. We should use the JRE (of same java and vendor version) instead to safe about 60 MB on file size.
The
BisqToolchainResolver
would need an extension to be used for the packager. The download path is exact the same justjdk
will bejre
.The
getJPackageJdkDirectory
method inPackagingPlugin
delivers the path for the runtime. This would require changes to support the JRE.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: