Debian Bug report logs - #926009
java.vendor change breaks applications checking java.vendor (like LibreOffice)

Reply or subscribe to this bug.

Display info messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org>

To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Subject: openjdk-11 breaks libreoffice autopkgtests

Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2019 10:32:04 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Source: openjdk-11, libreoffice
Control: found -1 openjdk-11/11.0.3+4-3
Control: found -1 libreoffice/1:6.1.5-1
Severity: important
X-Debbugs-CC: debian-ci@lists.debian.org
User: debian-ci@lists.debian.org
Usertags: breaks needs-update

Dear maintainers,

With a recent upload of openjdk-11 the autopkgtest of libreoffice fails
in testing when that autopkgtest is run with the binary packages of
openjdk-11 from unstable. It passes when run with only packages from
testing. In tabular form:
                       pass            fail
openjdk-11             from testing    11.0.3+4-3
libreoffice            from testing    1:6.1.5-1
all others             from testing    from testing

I copied some of the output at the bottom of this report.

Currently this regression is blocking the migration of openjdk-11 to
testing [1]. Due to the nature of this issue, I filed this bug report
against both packages. Can you please investigate the situation and
reassign the bug to the right package? If needed, please change the
bug's severity.

More information about this bug and the reason for filing it can be found on
https://wiki.debian.org/ContinuousIntegration/RegressionEmailInformation

Paul

[1] https://qa.debian.org/excuses.php?package=openjdk-11

https://ci.debian.net/data/autopkgtest/testing/amd64/libr/libreoffice/2172984/log.gz

====== Add the extension ======
javaldx: Could not find a Java Runtime Environment!
Please ensure that a JVM and the package libreoffice-java-common
is installed.
If it is already installed then try removing
~/.libreoffice/3/user/config/javasettings_Linux_*.xml
Synchronizing repository for shared extensions



 Synchronizing repository for bundled extensions



javaldx: Could not find a Java Runtime Environment!
Please ensure that a JVM and the package libreoffice-java-common
is installed.
If it is already installed then try removing
~/.libreoffice/3/user/config/javasettings_Linux_*.xml

ERROR: An error occurred while enabling: TestExtension.jar
       Cause:
(com.sun.star.registry.CannotRegisterImplementationException) { {
Message = "Could not create Java implementation loader", Context =
(com.sun.star.uno.XInterface) @0 } }

unopkg failed.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #18 received at 926009@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org>

To: Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org>, 926009@bugs.debian.org

Cc: control@bugs.debian.org, OpenJDK Team <openjdk@lists.launchpad.net>

Subject: Re: Bug#926009: openjdk-11 breaks libreoffice autopkgtests

Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2019 11:04:48 +0100

reassign 926009 src:openjdk-11
thanks

Hi,

On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 10:32:04AM +0100, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Currently this regression is blocking the migration of openjdk-11 to
> testing [1].

IMHO correctly so, some of the changes are so far away from the freeze
policy..

In any case, "normal" (j)unit tests on building LibreOffice don't work
either, so it's actually also a FTBFS for libreoffice...

> ====== Add the extension ======
> javaldx: Could not find a Java Runtime Environment!
> Please ensure that a JVM and the package libreoffice-java-common
> is installed.
> If it is already installed then try removing
> ~/.libreoffice/3/user/config/javasettings_Linux_*.xml

For that matter, happens even then.

Regards,

Rene

Message #23 received at 926009@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org>

To: 926009@bugs.debian.org

Cc: security <security@debian.org>

Subject: Re: openjdk-11 breaks libreoffice autopkgtests

Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 01:40:09 +0200

Control: reassign -1 src:libreoffice

> IMHO correctly so, some of the changes are so far away from the
> freeze policy..

pointy comments won't help, because you will see these changes at least in the
first buster security update, so maybe some backports for libreoffice are
needed? is that fixed in 6.2.x?

Message #30 received at 926009@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org>

To: Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org>, 926009@bugs.debian.org

Cc: security <security@debian.org>, control@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#926009: openjdk-11 breaks libreoffice autopkgtests

Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:41:07 +0200

# so let's assign it back to both until this is sorted out..
reassign -1 src:libreoffice, src:openjdk-11
thanks

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 01:40:09AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Control: reassign -1 src:libreoffice
> 
> > IMHO correctly so, some of the changes are so far away from the
> > freeze policy..
> 
> pointy comments won't help, because you will see these changes at least in the

You might call it pointy, but this is the fact.

> first buster security update

*shrugs*. So another
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=913641 where this
isn't fixed in (current) stable even after months after it was fixed
for other suites?

It has a build workaround upstream, no runtime....

> so maybe some backports for libreoffice are needed? is that fixed in 6.2.x?

I don't even know yet what needs to be changed... That said, I actually
first noticed this the day before Paul filed the bug - with 6.3.0 alpha
git snapshot. So any LO is affected.

Here we could ignore test failures, too, but that wouldn't help at all
for the functionality still needing Java or the autopkgtests :/

Regards,

Rene

Message #35 received at 926009@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org>

To: Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org>, 926009@bugs.debian.org

Cc: security <security@debian.org>, control@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#926009: openjdk-11 breaks libreoffice autopkgtests

Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2019 18:56:10 +0200

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 01, 2019 at 06:41:07PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> *shrugs*. So another
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=913641 where this
> isn't fixed in (current) stable even after months after it was fixed
> for other suites?
> 
> It has a build workaround upstream, no runtime....

Ah, just saw
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=911925#149
which means it's fixed in security at least...

Regards,
 
Rene

Message #42 received at 926009@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org>

To: Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org>, 926009@bugs.debian.org

Cc: control@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#926009: openjdk-11 breaks libreoffice autopkgtests

Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2019 23:44:27 +0200

retitle 926009 new "Debian" as java.vendor breaks libreoffice
reassign 926009 src:openjdk-11
thanks

Hi,

> > so maybe some backports for libreoffice are needed? is that fixed in 6.2.x?
> 
> I don't even know yet what needs to be changed... That said, I actually
> first noticed this the day before Paul filed the bug - with 6.3.0 alpha
> git snapshot. So any LO is affected.

Got it.

> > pointy comments won't help, because you will see these changes at
> > least in the first buster security update

Even

openjdk-11 (11.0.3+4-2) unstable; urgency=medium

  [ Matthias Klose ]
  * Configure with vendor flags.
[...]

?

That one is the problem.

Let's compare:

buster has:

$ java -XshowSettings:properties -version 2>&1 | grep vendor
    java.specification.vendor = Oracle Corporation
    java.vendor = Oracle Corporation
    java.vendor.url = http://java.oracle.com/
    java.vendor.url.bug = http://bugreport.java.com/bugreport/
    java.vm.specification.vendor = Oracle Corporation
    java.vm.vendor = Oracle Corporation

sid has:

$ java -XshowSettings:properties -version 2>&1 | grep vendor
    java.specification.vendor = Oracle Corporation
    java.vendor = Debian
    java.vendor.url = https://tracker.debian.org/openjdk-11
    java.vendor.url.bug = https://bugs.debian.org/openjdk-11
    java.vm.specification.vendor = Oracle Corporation
    java.vm.vendor = Debian

Indeed, jvmfwk has a known list of JDKs, and "Debian" (or whatever else
distro) does not appear in it:
https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/tree/jvmfwk/distributions/OpenOfficeorg/javavendors_linux.xml?h=libreoffice-6-1-5
and it looks in java.vendor:

jvmfwk/plugins/sunmajor/pluginlib/vendorbase.cxx:    //get java.vendor,
java.version, java.home,
jvmfwk/plugins/sunmajor/pluginlib/vendorbase.cxx:        if(! bVendor &&
prop.first == "java.vendor")

Indeed, after adding "Debian" as a copy of "Oracle Corporation" javaldx
works again.

We as distros can patch it for LibreOffice, but this change breaks LibreOffice out there unless
patched, and I doubt they will (or will be happy) to add extra stanzas for "Debian", "Ubuntu" or
whatever else.

I really believe this should be reverted.

Regards,

Rene

Message #53 received at 926009@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org>

To: Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org>, 926009@bugs.debian.org

Cc: control@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#926009: openjdk-11 breaks libreoffice autopkgtests

Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 07:41:20 +0200

reassign 926009 src:libreoffice,src:openjdk-11
retitle 926009 openjdk-11 breaks libreoffice autopkgtests
thanks

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 11:44:27PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Indeed, after adding "Debian" as a copy of "Oracle Corporation" javaldx
> works again.

I retract that, no idea what I did when testing this, maybe I just tried
in the wrong console window (given the time and tiredness not
unlikely..) ...

Regards,
 
Rene

Message #64 received at 926009@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org>

To: Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org>, 926009@bugs.debian.org

Cc: control@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#926009: openjdk-11 breaks libreoffice autopkgtests

Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2019 13:44:46 +0200

reassign 926009 src:openjdk-11
clone 926009 -1
found -1 11.0.3+4-2 
reassign -1 src:libreoffice
forwarded -1 https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=124503
retitle -1 LibreOffice does not recognize new "Debian" JDK (openjdk 11 >= 11.0.3+4-2)
thanks

Hi,

On Wed, Apr 03, 2019 at 07:41:19AM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 11:44:27PM +0200, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> > Indeed, after adding "Debian" as a copy of "Oracle Corporation" javaldx
> > works again.
> 
> I retract that, no idea what I did when testing this, maybe I just tried
> in the wrong console window (given the time and tiredness not
> unlikely..) ...

Olivier pointed me to javavendors.cxx which also needs to be patched.

Done in git now and it seems to work now, really :-)

I still think the java(.vm).vendor change should be reverted, though.

Reassigning a clone of this to LO, I'll add "Debian" as a supported
vendor nevertheless for now to get it building right now...

Regards,
  
Rene

Message #77 received at 926009@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org>

To: 928185@bugs.debian.org, 926009@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#928185: unblock: openjdk-11/11.0.3+7-4

Date: Thu, 9 May 2019 09:46:32 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Control: tags 928185 - wontfix
Control: tags 928185 moreinfo
Control: tags 926009 wontfix

Hi doko,

I assume you wanted to tag the openjdk-11 bug as wontfix, not the
unblock bug, changed that above.

On Thu, 2 May 2019 13:59:46 +0200 Matthias Klose <doko@debian.org> wrote:
> Control: tags -1 - moreinfo
> Control: tags -1 + wontfix

[...]

> On 02.05.19 10:30, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > From what I understand bug#926009 is a regression in that version.
> > There's no explanation that I can see for that change, no associated
> > bug, and it doesn't look appropriate.  Please revert it.
> 
> No. The issue is in the LibreOffice package, which already has this fixed in
> testing. The openjdk package also has an appropriate Breaks.

We are aware that LO is fixed for this change. What we are still missing
is the rationale for why this is needed. We fear that this may break
more things than LO, especially things outside of Debian control. Please
help us understand why you think this is important and why you don't
want to revert it.

Paul

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #84 received at 926009@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org>

To: 926009@bugs.debian.org

Cc: 928185@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re bug 926009: java.vendor change breaks applications checking java.vendor (like LibreOffice)

Date: Thu, 16 May 2019 20:30:17 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi doko,

On 09-05-2019 09:46, Paul Gevers wrote:
>> On 02.05.19 10:30, Julien Cristau wrote:
>>> From what I understand bug#926009 is a regression in that version.
>>> There's no explanation that I can see for that change, no associated
>>> bug, and it doesn't look appropriate.  Please revert it.
>>
>> No. The issue is in the LibreOffice package, which already has this fixed in
>> testing. The openjdk package also has an appropriate Breaks.
> 
> We are aware that LO is fixed for this change. What we are still missing
> is the rationale for why this is needed. We fear that this may break
> more things than LO, especially things outside of Debian control. Please
> help us understand why you think this is important and why you don't
> want to revert it.

Any comment, please?

Paul

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #89 received at 926009-quiet@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thorsten Glaser <t.glaser@tarent.de>

To: Debian Java Maintainers <debian-java@lists.debian.org>

Cc: Rene Engelhard <rene@debian.org>, 926009-quiet@bugs.debian.org, 928185@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#926009: openjdk-11 breaks libreoffice autopkgtests

Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 18:54:43 +0200 (CEST)

On Tue, 2 Apr 2019, Rene Engelhard wrote:

> We as distros can patch it for LibreOffice, but this change breaks LibreOffice out there unless
> patched, and I doubt they will (or will be happy) to add extra stanzas for "Debian", "Ubuntu" or
> whatever else.
> 
> I really believe this should be reverted.

Yes, this is really weird, and…

> > On Mon, 1 Apr 2019, Matthias Klose wrote:

> > > > IMHO correctly so, some of the changes are so far away from the
> > > > freeze policy..
> > > 
> > > pointy comments won't help, because you will see these changes at least in the
> > > first buster security update, so maybe some backports for libreoffice are

… I fail to see how this qualifies for a security update.

Perhaps you’ll wish to revert this change when building for
anything older than bullseye/sid. Sometimes, lies need to
be introduced when backporting (for either stable-security
or bpo) to keep the stability guarantee.

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
tarent solutions GmbH
Rochusstraße 2-4, D-53123 Bonn • http://www.tarent.de/
Tel: +49 228 54881-393 • Fax: +49 228 54881-235
HRB 5168 (AG Bonn) • USt-ID (VAT): DE122264941
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Stefan Barth, Kai Ebenrett, Boris Esser, Alexander Steeg

**********

Mit der tarent Academy bieten wir auch Trainings und Schulungen in den
Bereichen Softwareentwicklung, Agiles Arbeiten und Zukunftstechnologien an.

Besuchen Sie uns auf www.tarent.de/academy. Wir freuen uns auf Ihren Kontakt.

**********

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.