Bug#664706: python-uno: RuntimeError from unopkg on upgrade
Package: python-uno
Version: 1:3.4.5-5
Severity: normal
When upgrading the LibreOffice packages from version 1:3.4.5-4 to
1:3.4.5-5, the following error is output from ‘unokpg’:
=====
Preparing to replace python-uno 1:3.4.5-4 (using .../python-uno_1%3a3.4.5-5_i386.deb) ...
Synchronizing repository for bundled extensions
Disabling: script-provider-for-python
Disabling: pythonscript.py
Enabling: PDF Import
Enabling: PDFImport
Enabling: xpdfimport
Enabling: pdfimport.uno.so
Enabling: pdf_import_filter.xcu
Enabling: pdf_types.xcu
Enabling: Report Builder
Enabling: ReportCommands.xcs
Enabling: DbReportWindowState.xcs
Enabling: ReportDesign.xcs
Enabling: sun-report-builder.jar
ERROR: (com.sun.star.uno.RuntimeException) { { Message = "javaloader error - no mapping from java to C++ ", Context = (com.sun.star.uno.XInterface) @0 } }
rollback...
Disabling: ReportDesign.xcs
Disabling: DbReportWindowState.xcs
Disabling: ReportCommands.xcs
rollback finished.
unopkg done.
Unpacking replacement python-uno ...
=====
Subsequently, this error is also output (and the rollback disabling
‘ReportDesign.xcs’, ‘DbReportWindowState.xcs’, and ‘ReportCommands.xcs’)
from upgrading the following packages during the same run:
* libreoffice-mysql-connector
* libreoffice-presentation-minimizer
* libreoffice-presenter-console
* libreoffice-sdbc-postgresql
* libreoffice-pdfimport
* libreoffice-common
-- System Information:
Debian Release: wheezy/sid
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500, 'testing')
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 3.2.0-2-686-pae (SMP w/2 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_AU.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_AU.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8) (ignored: LC_ALL set to en_AU.utf8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash
Versions of packages python-uno depends on:
ii libc6 2.13-27
ii libgcc1 1:4.6.3-1
ii libpython2.7 2.7.2-8
ii libreoffice-core 1:3.4.5-5
ii libstdc++6 4.6.3-1
ii python 2.7.2-10
ii python2.7 2.7.2-8
ii uno-libs3 3.4.5-5
python-uno recommends no packages.
python-uno suggests no packages.
-- no debconf information
Reply to: