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

[Olivier Tilloy]

On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 10:22 AM Stephan Bergmann <sbergman at redhat.com>
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.
Your assumption that this is distro-patched in Debian and Ubuntu is
correct, see
https://salsa.debian.org/libreoffice-team/libreoffice/libreoffice/blob/debian-experimental-6.2/patches/java.vendor-Debian.diff
 and
https://git.launchpad.net/~libreoffice/ubuntu/+source/libreoffice/tree/patches/java.vendor-Ubuntu.patch?h=ubuntu-disco-6.2
.
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/libreoffice/attachments/20190410/9e7d81b6/attachment.html>