Issue 14282 - jvmsetup: Java could not be found in 1.1 Beta 2
Summary: jvmsetup: Java could not be found in 1.1 Beta 2
Status: CLOSED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: Build Tools
Classification: Code
Component: code (show other issues)
Version: OOo 1.1
Hardware: PC Linux, all
: P2 Trivial (vote)
Target Milestone: OOo 1.1 RC
Assignee: Olaf Felka
QA Contact: issues@tools
URL:
Keywords:
: 14439 14823 15152 15661 (view as issue list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2003-05-09 14:08 UTC by pavel
Modified: 2003-06-25 15:39 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description pavel 2003-05-09 14:08:02 UTC
Hi,

on SuSE Linux 8.2 with

pavel@pavel:/data/pavel/OpenOffice.org1.1Beta2/program> rpm -qa|grep -i java
BlackdownJava2-JRE-1.4.1-3
java2-jre-1.4.1-23
java2-1.4.1-23

JRE could not be found in jvmsetup. Both 1.0.3 and 1.1 Beta 1 can find it
in /usr/lib/java/jre/. Do you see the same?

The same behavior was observed also on SuSE Linux 8.0 with 1.3.1 (old
versions work, Beta 2 doesn't).

Even if I browse to /usr/lib/java/jre/ JRE is not found there.

Kevin told me that there is a bug in scp/source/office/files.scp. Why do we
exclude 1.4.1 for OOo specifically on Linux/INTEL?

ExcludeVersion=1.4.1
Comment 1 Martin Hollmichel 2003-05-09 14:24:01 UTC
reassigned.
Comment 2 joachim.lingner 2003-05-12 12:13:32 UTC
The content of the listbox of the java setup should initially contain
supported versions only, which currently are Sun Javas and compatible
Javas (including same versioning scheme) which meet our version
requirement. 

By using the "Browse" button one can choose a Java installation "by
hand". Then we have these scenarios:

1.A SUN Java or compatible Java which meets the version requirement
was selected. It will be represented as the other Java installations
in the list box. If the selected Java is already present, then nothing
happens.

2.A SUN Java or compatible Java which does not meet the version
requirement was seleected. It will be represented as the other Java
installations in the list box. If the selected Java is already
present, because it was already added to the list by means of the
"browse" functionality, then nothing happens.

3. A none compatible Java was selected. The representation depends on
the information which can be gained from that Java, such as JRE or
SDK, version, and accessibility support. If that information is
available than it is displayed.

The version string will be available if the java supports the version
option (java -version) and the output contains the version in the
first line of its output and is enclosed in quotes. For example

java version "1.4.1"

This may lead to the display of useless content. 

JL->CJ: Can you confirm this?
Comment 3 kai.sommerfeld 2003-05-13 09:04:43 UTC
Fix will make it into RC.
Comment 4 pavel 2003-05-13 20:26:11 UTC
Kai,

could you please tell how did you fixed it so we can provide it for
our users in Beta2 so they can actually use it? I can in turn tell you
if it is OK or not.

Thanks.
Comment 5 joachim.lingner 2003-05-14 06:52:22 UTC
Pavel, 
The internal API which we use to find Java installations will be
relaxed in a sense that Javas are recognized which are not 100% SUN
compatible. In case of Blackdown, the version string does not
correspond to a SUN specification.

A workaround for now is to edit the <office-dir>/user/config/javarc.
There you need to adapt the entries 
Home
RuntimeLib
JavaLibPath
Comment 6 joachim.lingner 2003-05-15 12:43:01 UTC
fixed in srx644 cws uno4
Comment 7 joachim.lingner 2003-05-15 14:08:38 UTC
reopen
Comment 8 joachim.lingner 2003-05-15 16:16:03 UTC
fixed in cws uno4
Comment 9 joachim.lingner 2003-05-19 11:53:39 UTC
jl->of: Please verify.
Comment 10 Olaf Felka 2003-05-19 16:19:19 UTC
Looks good for me in cws uno4. With the browse option I can point
jvmsetup to blackdow java and it was detected.
Comment 11 Olaf Felka 2003-05-19 16:19:40 UTC
Verified.
Comment 12 Olaf Felka 2003-05-26 09:02:42 UTC
*** Issue 14823 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 13 Olaf Felka 2003-06-02 09:21:33 UTC
*** Issue 15152 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 14 Olaf Felka 2003-06-10 11:44:36 UTC
*** Issue 14439 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 15 Olaf Felka 2003-06-17 08:52:18 UTC
*** Issue 15661 has been marked as a duplicate of this issue. ***
Comment 16 Olaf Felka 2003-06-25 15:39:31 UTC
OK in RC.