Bug#913641: libreoffice-report-builder: report builder reports fail to run
On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 12:58:02PM +0100, rene.engelhard@mailbox.org wrote:
> Am 13. November 2018 12:13:52 MEZ schrieb Lionel Elie Mamane <lionel@mamane.lu>:
>> Package: libreoffice-report-builder
>> Version: 1:6.1.3-1
>> Severity: normal
> Huh, what? On a stable? Seriousl
Yes, I'm dogfooding more recent version of LibreOffice. Seriously,
that's how one gets early testers and bug reports before release.
>> Trying to run any report (a report builder one, not a legacy one)
>> fails with error message:
>> Can not activate the factory for
>> org.libreoffice.report.pentaho.SOReportJobFactory$_SOReportJobFactory
> I assume it's related to stables openjdk 8 update and the discussion
> in https://gerrit.libreoffice.org/63118.
Hmmm... Switching LibreOffice to use OpenJDK 7 solves that issue. I
guess this confirms your assumption?
> Need to file a bug on openjdk...
Not clear if you are saying I need to do it, or you need to do it. I
don't quite understand the issue, you do, so I assume you will, you
will be able to explain to the Java package maintainers the issue?
Please CC me, I'd like to be educated on that.
> >-- System Information:
> >Debian Release: 9.6
> > APT prefers stable-updates
> >APT policy: (600, 'stable-updates'), (600, 'stable'), (400, 'testing'),
> >(300, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
> >Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)
> >Foreign Architectures: i386
> > [...]
> >Versions of packages libreoffice-report-builder depends on:
> >ii libbase-java 1.1.6-2
> >ii libcommons-logging-java 1.2-1
> >ii libflute-java 1:1.1.6-3
> >ii libfonts-java 1.1.6.dfsg-3
> >ii libformula-java 1.1.7.dfsg-2
> >ii liblayout-java 0.2.10-2
> >ii libloader-java 1.1.6.dfsg-4
> >ii libpentaho-reporting-flow-engine-java 0.9.4-4
> >ii libreoffice-common 1:6.1.3-1
> >ii libreoffice-core 1:6.1.3-1
> >ii libreoffice-java-common 1:6.1.3-1
> >ii libreoffice-report-builder-bin 1:6.1.3-1
> >ii librepository-java 1.1.6-3
> >ii libsac-java 1.3+dfsg-2
> >ii libserializer-java 1.1.6-4
> >ii libxml-java 1.1.6.dfsg-3
> This honestly is Soo broken. Ok, the backport will have the same problem (that's why I needed +2 there) but..
That's honestly not broken at all. That's why our packages have
dependencies, so that they can have what they require.
>> ii openjdk-8-jre [java6-runtime] 8u181-b13-2~deb9u1
> This is probably the cause What happens with the old openjdk 8 on
> stretch or openjdk 11.0.1+13?
Downgrading to 8u171-b11-2 makes this problem disappear.
Reply to: