Skip to content
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

Broken symlink created during bundling #26

Open
arimer opened this issue Aug 3, 2018 · 4 comments
Open

Broken symlink created during bundling #26

arimer opened this issue Aug 3, 2018 · 4 comments
Assignees

Comments

@arimer
Copy link
Member

arimer commented Aug 3, 2018

When creating a .dmg file containing the application a broken symlink is still created under

Application/MyAppapp/Contents/bin/*.dylib

To verify this for your application you could just use the following command to find the
broken link:

find . -type l ! -exec test -e {} \; -print

It looks like the following code is always executed. I will add a condition there.

for f in "$CONTENTS/bin"/*.jnilib; do

@arimer arimer self-assigned this Aug 3, 2018
@arimer
Copy link
Member Author

arimer commented Aug 3, 2018

Just saw that we have duplicated and outdated code in two scripts:

if ls "$CONTENTS/bin"/*.jnilib >& /dev/null; then

and

for f in "$CONTENTS/bin"/*.jnilib; do

I am not sure if we want to keep both of it, because it seems to be only relevant for older MPS versions.

@sergej-koscejev
Copy link
Contributor

@arimer you probably meant one of the files to be mpssign.sh in your comment.

We should call bundle_macos_jdk.sh from mpssign.sh, and remove most of the code from mpssign.sh except for the argument parsing and signing.

mpssign.sh should:

  1. Parse arguments (also check the SIGN_ arguments before the script does anything)
  2. Call bundle_macos_jdk.sh with appropriate args (if no JDK was given, pass empty string as JDK)
  3. Do the signing stuff (code beginning with echo "Signing application $BUILD_NAME", up to echo "check sign done").

@arimer
Copy link
Member Author

arimer commented Aug 3, 2018

Could we maybe agree to merge first the simple change introduced here: #27

And afterwards refactor the buildscripts?

@sergej-koscejev
Copy link
Contributor

@arimer sure :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants