On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 12:58:02PM +0100, rene.engelh...@mailbox.org wrote: > Am 13. November 2018 12:13:52 MEZ schrieb Lionel Elie Mamane > <lio...@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.