I admit I am not very acquainted with the internals of signing and pack200. However, we are using Tycho for our builds, but our jobs provide the following option when calling Maven (which seems to be used by a couple of other hudson jobs as well; it was probably recommended in some instructions I don’t remember):
I assume we will have to adopt this to something like the following then, right:
Is there a way to confirm that a build behaves as expected (do the sim-rel repo-reports for instance cover this)?
I wanted to let everyone know that "we"
are changing the version of Java's pack200 at the infrastructure service
I call "batch signer". (Bug 463510)
It was using Java 6 level of pack200, and we have moved
to the Java 8 level of pack200.
This command is described at
This does not directly impact Tycho
users or Buckminster users (which do their own re-pack and pack, based
on the VM the build is running, I assume) but might effect PDE users, which
traditionally have used this service to "re-pack" (condition)
and sign jars -- and, then at some short later time are "packed".
At that "some later time", it is the release engineers
responsibility to use the same version to 'pack' as was used to 'repack'.
While no direct impact to Tycho or Buckminster
builders, the principles and consequences of moving from one level (Java
6) to another (Java 8) apply with any builder, so the following points
may be useful information to all.
If you have "old byte codes",
or, even new ones, compiled at the Java 4, Java 5, or Java 6 level, you
*might* find some of those bytes codes no longer survive the "re-pack",
sign, and "pack" process (where as maybe the would survived,
when using Java 6 to run your build (and hence your repack/pack). That
is, if user tries to download the pack.gz file, and unpack into a normal
jar, it may be reported to have in "invalid signature" or in
some other way "broken".
In my experience, with Orbit jars, the
"error rate" is about 1.7%. Others, for some unknown reason,
see higher rates (such as 20-30%?) . Some of these cases *might* be bugs
in the pack/unpack programs, but it's just as likely that there are "bugs"
(fringe cases) where the byte codes for lower levels of Java are not quite
"right". All I know for sure: it has never been perfect.
But, luckily, easy to solve.
All three builders (PDE, Tycho, and
Buckminster) allow you to specify an 'eclipse.inf' file in the META-INF
directory, with a directive (line) that is:
Thus, that one problematic jar is not
packed, but is still signed.
So important point 1: be sure you "pack200"
with the same version you used to do "repack" (if the builder
doesn't do it for you automatically).
Important point 2: I wouldn't recommend
studying the byte codes and trying to find a pattern of code that is the
cause (unless you just happen to love byte codes), ... just slap in an
eclipse.inf file and move on to more important things.
Important point 3: You should not, ever
never, "re-sign" and certainly not re-pack or pack200 a jar that
has already been signed or processed by pack200. That pretty much guarantees
the jar will be broken. In more ways than one. (Bug 461669)
The reason for making this move, now,
is that it is best to "keep up" with what our users are using,
and, with versions of Java that are expected to stay in service for a while
... otherwise, we might have to monkey around with this during a service
release, which is less than ideal.
* Bonus, for reading this far in my
wordy note: Why jump two levels, from 6 to 8, why not move to Java 7 first?
Well it turns out, at the moment, the versions of pack200 and unpack200
that ship with Java 7 and Java 8 are exactly
the same. But, the advantage is,
in some service release, there might be a new version and we'd pick it
up automatically, as long as we use /shared/common/jdk1.8.0_x86-latest
consistently. Double bonus: remember that pack200 and unpack200 have
little to do with Java source code they are stand-alone executables, written
in C-code, that simply manipulate byte codes. Which is how p2 can let you
any version of pack200 you want,
no mater which version of Java you are using.
Naturally, feel free to comment in Bug 463510
if any questions or concrete problems
cross-project-issues-dev mailing listcross-project-issues-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
Dr. Alexander Nyßen
Telefon: +49 (0) 231 / 98 60-202
Telefax: +49 (0) 231 / 98 60-211
Mobil: +49 (0) 151 / 17396743http://www.itemis.de alexander.nyssen@xxxxxxxxx
Am Brambusch 15-24
Amtsgericht Dortmund, HRB 20621
Vorstand: Jens Wagener (Vors.), Wolfgang Neuhaus, Dr. Georg Pietrek, Jens Trompeter, Sebastian Neus
Aufsichtsrat: Prof. Dr. Burkhard Igel (Vors.), Michael Neuhaus, Jennifer Fiorentino