On backporting fix for tdf#124503 "LibreOffice doesn't detect JVM because of unexpected java.vendor property value"

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
sberg sberg
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

On backporting fix for tdf#124503 "LibreOffice doesn't detect JVM because of unexpected java.vendor property value"

See <https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=124503#c9> for
the fix for master (towards LO 6.3).  While the title and fix both cover
a broad scope (any JRE that reports a java.vendor that the LO code
doesn't find in its hardcoded list), the issue that prompted the bug and
the fix is that Debian and Ubuntu apparently started to distribute
OpenJDK versions that no longer announce the well-known Oracle
java.vendor string, but instead go with things like "Debian", "Ubuntu",
or "Private".

It is not clear to me whether those distros will revert their
modifications soonish (so that there would be no immediate need for LO
to get anything fixed on our side).  If not, the question is whether to
backport the above fix to libreoffice-6-1 (towards LO 6.1.6),
libreoffice-6-2 (towards LO 6.2.4), and maybe even libreoffice-6-2-3.
The fix isn't exactly small, so I would prefer to not backport it
aggressively.  But I don't know how severely users would be affected by
this issue.  (I assume that Debian and Ubuntu would take care of the
issue for their bundled LO, by updating the hard-coded list accordingly.
  That could also be an alternative to backporting the above fix here at
upstream, but with drawbacks:  We would---somewhat needlessly---extend
the hardcoded list, even if master already has a fix that makes the
additions moot.)

Thoughts, esp. from people involved in the relevant distros?
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Olivier Tilloy Olivier Tilloy
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On backporting fix for tdf#124503 "LibreOffice doesn't detect JVM because of unexpected java.vendor property value"



On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 10:22 AM Stephan Bergmann <[hidden email]> wrote:
See <https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=124503#c9> for
the fix for master (towards LO 6.3).  While the title and fix both cover
a broad scope (any JRE that reports a java.vendor that the LO code
doesn't find in its hardcoded list), the issue that prompted the bug and
the fix is that Debian and Ubuntu apparently started to distribute
OpenJDK versions that no longer announce the well-known Oracle
java.vendor string, but instead go with things like "Debian", "Ubuntu",
or "Private".

It is not clear to me whether those distros will revert their
modifications soonish (so that there would be no immediate need for LO
to get anything fixed on our side).  If not, the question is whether to
backport the above fix to libreoffice-6-1 (towards LO 6.1.6),
libreoffice-6-2 (towards LO 6.2.4), and maybe even libreoffice-6-2-3.
The fix isn't exactly small, so I would prefer to not backport it
aggressively.  But I don't know how severely users would be affected by
this issue.  (I assume that Debian and Ubuntu would take care of the
issue for their bundled LO, by updating the hard-coded list accordingly.
  That could also be an alternative to backporting the above fix here at
upstream, but with drawbacks:  We would---somewhat needlessly---extend
the hardcoded list, even if master already has a fix that makes the
additions moot.)

Thoughts, esp. from people involved in the relevant distros?

There doesn't seem to be an intention to revert the java.vendor modifications in Debian and Ubuntu.
So there's not immediate need for backporting the fix from master to 6.2.x. If you do that would allow dropping those two distro patches.

Thanks for addressing the issue in master so promptly, by the way!

Cheers,

 Olivier

_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Thorsten Behrens-6 Thorsten Behrens-6
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On backporting fix for tdf#124503 "LibreOffice doesn't detect JVM because of unexpected java.vendor property value"

In reply to this post by sberg
Hi Stephan,

Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> If not, the question is whether to backport the above fix to
> libreoffice-6-1 (towards LO 6.1.6), libreoffice-6-2 (towards LO
> 6.2.4), and maybe even libreoffice-6-2-3. The fix isn't exactly
> small, so I would prefer to not backport it aggressively.  But I
> don't know how severely users would be affected by this issue.
>
I'd prefer a backport to both maintained branches - at the current
speed of new binary Java distros springing up (and the overall
trajectory of that ecosystem there), I'd expect more of those issues
down the road.

Cheers,

-- Thorsten

_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

signature.asc (1K) Download Attachment
sberg sberg
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On backporting fix for tdf#124503 "LibreOffice doesn't detect JVM because of unexpected java.vendor property value"

On 11/04/2019 09:30, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> I'd prefer a backport to both maintained branches - at the current
> speed of new binary Java distros springing up (and the overall
> trajectory of that ecosystem there), I'd expect more of those issues
> down the road.

Fair enough.  Gerrit changes up for review at
<https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/#/c/70587/> for libreoffice-6-1 and at
<https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/#/c/70586/> for libreoffice-6-2.
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
sberg sberg
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On backporting fix for tdf#124503 "LibreOffice doesn't detect JVM because of unexpected java.vendor property value"

On 11/04/2019 10:35, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> On 11/04/2019 09:30, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
>> I'd prefer a backport to both maintained branches - at the current
>> speed of new binary Java distros springing up (and the overall
>> trajectory of that ecosystem there), I'd expect more of those issues
>> down the road.
>
> Fair enough.  Gerrit changes up for review at
> <https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/#/c/70587/> for libreoffice-6-1 and at
> <https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/#/c/70586/> for libreoffice-6-2.

(BTW, I only tested my fix against stock OpenJDK reporting the Oracle
vendor string, by manually removing that vendor information from my
local LO sources temporarily.  It would be great if somebody could
actually test it against one of those problematic OpenJDK variants that
are unknown in the LO sources.)
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
rene.engelhard rene.engelhard
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: On backporting fix for tdf#124503 "LibreOffice doesn't detect JVM because of unexpected java.vendor property value"

Am 12. April 2019 09:43:01 MESZ schrieb Stephan Bergmann <[hidden email]>:

>On 11/04/2019 10:35, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
>> On 11/04/2019 09:30, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
>>> I'd prefer a backport to both maintained branches - at the current
>>> speed of new binary Java distros springing up (and the overall
>>> trajectory of that ecosystem there), I'd expect more of those issues
>>> down the road.
>>
>> Fair enough.  Gerrit changes up for review at
>> <https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/#/c/70587/> for libreoffice-6-1 and
>at
>> <https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/#/c/70586/> for libreoffice-6-2.
>
>(BTW, I only tested my fix against stock OpenJDK reporting the Oracle
>vendor string, by manually removing that vendor information from my
>local LO sources temporarily.  It would be great if somebody could
>actually test it against one of those problematic OpenJDK variants that
>
>are unknown in the LO sources.)
>_______________________________________________
>LibreOffice mailing list
>[hidden email]
>https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice

Hi,

Did that last night with the libreoffice-6-1 branch including the backport.

Seems to work. At least no test failure :)

Regards,

Rene
--
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice