Bug#853149: Extension Manager: exception in synchronize
Dear Rene,
thank you for the quick reply and checks. I think it can be closed, see
below.
On 01/30/2017 12:09 PM, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> reassign 853149 libreoffice-core
> tag 853149 + unreproducible
> tag 853149 + moreinfo
> thanks
>
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2017 at 11:00:07AM +0100, Tjeerd Pinkert wrote:
>> Package: libreoffice-base
>
> Obviously not. It's not a bug in the Database application, is it?
> Please report against correct packages (and in this case the package description
> of libreoffice-base is clear what it is)
I'm sorry, this is my fault, realised only after sending it should have
been another package, would have chosen libreoffice-common or -core I
think, still wrong, -base sounds like it (in Dutch) but is not :~
>> Version: 4.3.3-2+deb8u5
>>
>> After an update I found that LibreOffice did not start anymore. It gave
>> an error dialog saying:
>
> When and what and how?
I restarted my machine last friday after a longer time with multiple
updates done in the mean time (it partially acts as a server), but not
as long ago as mid-2016.
> 1:4.3.3-2+deb8u5 is there since months (mid-2016), as is
> libreoffice-lightproof-en (from jessie release onwards)
> (which would be the correct package to file it in if it was a bug in th
> packages' file permissions)
>
>> After searching the web I found that this might happen if the user
>> profile is defunct (that was not the case) or the Extention Manager has
>> no access to some of the shared library locations:
>>
>> I found that including all rX on the following directories solved the bug.
>>
>> user@pudding:/usr/lib/libreoffice/share/extensions/lightproof_en/pythonpath$
>> ls -l
>> total 44
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4078 May 15 2014
>> lightproof_handler_lightproof_en.py
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 14966 May 15 2014 lightproof_impl_lightproof_en.py
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 13965 May 15 2014 lightproof_lightproof_en.py
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 260 May 15 2014 lightproof_opts_lightproof_en.py
>> drwxr-x--- 2 root root 4096 Jan 24 10:58 __pycache__
>> user@pudding:/usr/lib/libreoffice/share/extensions/lightproof_en/pythonpath$
>> sudo chmod a+rX __pycache__/
>> user@pudding:/usr/lib/libreoffice/share/extensions/lightproof_en/pythonpath$
>> cd __pycache__/
>> user@pudding:/usr/lib/libreoffice/share/extensions/lightproof_en/pythonpath/__pycache__$
>> ls -l
>> total 28
>> -rw-r----- 1 root root 4938 Jan 24 10:58
>> lightproof_handler_lightproof_en.cpython-34.pyc
>> -rw-r----- 1 root root 14624 Jan 24 10:58
>> lightproof_impl_lightproof_en.cpython-34.pyc
>> -rw-r----- 1 root root 435 Jan 24 10:58
>> lightproof_opts_lightproof_en.cpython-34.pyc
>> user@pudding:/usr/lib/libreoffice/share/extensions/lightproof_en/pythonpath/__pycache__$
>> sudo chmod a+rX *
>
> After installing libreoffice-lightproof-en and libreoffice-writer in a clean
> jessie and proofchecking a simple wrong sentence and closing I get:
>
> drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 30 11:04 __pycache__
>
> So it's ok. (And normal files don't need to be +x)
X is not x. Interesting that the clean install is OK.
>> After this it still did not work, I also changed:
>>
>> user@pudding:/var/spool/libreoffice/uno_packages/cache$ ls -l
>> total 4
>> drwxr-x--- 2 root root 4096 Jan 24 10:58 uno_packages
>> user@pudding:/var/spool/libreoffice/uno_packages/cache$ sudo chmod a+rX *
>
> (cowbuilder-stable)root@frodo:/var/spool/libreoffice/uno_packages/cache# ls -l
> total 4
> drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jan 30 11:04 uno_packages
Interesting... Looks like something on my machine went wrong, but what...
> without doing anything. Did you loose directories and recreated them on your own?
> fs problems?
No directories lost as far as I know.
The latter might have been the case although I had a clean fs on reboot
as far as I know/have seen? I also had some other old trouble back
today, so it might have been an unclean fs restored to some previous
state... Let's keep it on that.
> In any case, I can't see any bug in any of the involving packages.
OK, I accept your verdict, thank you for the efforts, my excuses for the
false report.
I hope then this will at the least serve as a lead to other users
getting this error (since SSE is not the problem here, but that is what
many searches refer to).
Best regards,
Tjeerd
Reply to: