[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#452925: javasettings_*.xml from previous version still troublesome



hello,

I've upgraded (on Etch) to 1:2.3.1-2~bpo40+1 and then I see the error
  javaldx failed!
and some actions make ooo crash (eg trying to email the current doc - btw, 
ooo needs java just to spawn a mailer?!?).

It's not exactly same bug as 452925, nevertheless it share most of the 
'features' - namely, I don't get the 'could not load Java runtime library'
error, but simply seems ooo won't store the jvm setting.

In #452925 was mentioned that javasettings_x86.xml was the culprit, a 
problem which should have been addressed by a ~recent patch.
Seems the fix wasn't complete though: I see an old javasettings_Linux_x86.xml
with old data: 

.openoffice.org2/user/config/javasettings_Linux_x86.xml:<location>file:///usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-sun-1.5.0.10/jre</location>

Removing it solved the problem, ooo stored the jvm setting and emailng worked;
what puzzle me, is that the config was written in same file:

.openoffice.org2/user/config/javasettings_Linux_x86.xml:<location>file:///usr/lib/jvm/java-1.5.0-sun-1.5.0.14/jre</location>

and old (blocking) and 'new' file look pretty much the same (except for the 
fields value of course):

$ ls -l .openoffice.org2/user/config/javasettings*
-rw-r--r-- 1 paolo paolo 1622 2008-03-09 09:57 .openoffice.org2/user/config/javasettings_Linux_x86.xml
-rw-r--r-- 1 paolo paolo 1624 2008-03-09 09:27 .openoffice.org2/user/config/javasettings_Linux_x86.xml.old

so why ooo did not just update the data in the .xml ?

BTW, as mentioned by #452925 originator, imo it'd be saner to use the 
jvm/java-1.5.0-sun
link instead of the versioned path
jvm/java-1.5.0-sun-1.5.0.14
so that jvm upgrade won't break ooo settings (at least until jvm major.minor
version remains the same).


thanks
-- 
 paolo
 
 GPG/PGP id:0x3A47DE45  - B5F9 AAA0 44BD 2B63 81E0  971F C6C0 0B87 3A47 DE45
 - 9/11: the outrageous deception and ongoing coverup: http://911review.org -



Reply to: