From martinrb at google.com Tue Jul 29 22:05:41 2008 From: martinrb at google.com (Martin Buchholz) Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 22:05:41 -0700 Subject: JRE install bundles for 6u10 are non-executable Message-ID: <1ccfd1c10807292205n51cc4600u6b79fa02de591747@mail.gmail.com> I installed the Linux JREs for 6u10 b28, (using java -jar jre......jar) and was surprised to discover none of the programs (like "bin/java") were executable. I checked earlier 6u10 builds, and they have the same problem. I suspect the jdk7 builds also have this problem. This seems like a P1 deployment bug. Hasn't anyone ever run sanity checks on JREs installed this way? Martin From martinrb at google.com Wed Jul 30 00:03:46 2008 From: martinrb at google.com (Martin Buchholz) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 00:03:46 -0700 Subject: JRE install bundles for 6u10 are non-executable In-Reply-To: References: <1ccfd1c10807292205n51cc4600u6b79fa02de591747@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1ccfd1c10807300003lb859569r6992380cbdfe3acb@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 10:56 PM, Volker Simonis wrote: > Hi Martin, > > this is a known problem and it it noticed at the top of the download > page at http://download.java.net/jdk6/ : > "If you choose to download and install self-extracting JRE or DEBUG > Jar bundles then you need to change the file permission to be > executable in the bin directory after the installation." Thanks. I missed that. > I think this is because of a long standing problem which doesn't allow > the Java zip-classes to create executable files on *nix (i.e. there's > no standard Java API which allows the manipulation of file access > permissions on *nix except setting the read-only bit). Of course, we would like better access to the OS from Java APIs, and JSR 203 is providing that, but today there's no reason a Java program can't simply run /bin/chmod in a subprocess. It's not like the installer is portable anyways, with a string like "linux-i586" in its name. Furthermore, the installer for the JDK actually works! Why not use the same one for the JRE? Martin From martinrb at google.com Wed Jul 30 09:19:38 2008 From: martinrb at google.com (Martin Buchholz) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:19:38 -0700 Subject: JRE install bundles for 6u10 are non-executable In-Reply-To: <17c6771e0807300413t576d5a27r15317967f7020979@mail.gmail.com> References: <1ccfd1c10807292205n51cc4600u6b79fa02de591747@mail.gmail.com> <17c6771e0807300413t576d5a27r15317967f7020979@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1ccfd1c10807300919g7bc7a75fmba3686f8855b88dd@mail.gmail.com> Andrew raises a good point. It's true that Sun does not provide binaries for OpenJDK, and the code that deploys them is not open source, but... it would be nice if Sun did provide OpenJDK binaries (since Sun builds them) and I would certainly expect the web deployment code to become open source eventually, even if not technically a part of OpenJDK. If I were still at Sun, I probably would have used Sun's internal bug-tracking system to report such bugs. Martin On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 4:13 AM, Andrew John Hughes wrote: > 2008/7/30 Martin Buchholz : >> I installed the Linux JREs for 6u10 b28, >> (using java -jar jre......jar) >> and was surprised to discover none of the >> programs (like "bin/java") were executable. >> I checked earlier 6u10 builds, >> and they have the same problem. >> I suspect the jdk7 builds also have this problem. >> >> This seems like a P1 deployment bug. >> Hasn't anyone ever run sanity checks >> on JREs installed this way? >> >> Martin >> > > How is this related to OpenJDK? > -- > Andrew :-) > > Support Free Java! > Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK > http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath > http://openjdk.java.net > > PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net) > Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8 > From Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM Wed Jul 30 10:42:21 2008 From: Kelly.Ohair at Sun.COM (Kelly O'Hair) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 10:42:21 -0700 Subject: JRE install bundles for 6u10 are non-executable In-Reply-To: <1ccfd1c10807300919g7bc7a75fmba3686f8855b88dd@mail.gmail.com> References: <1ccfd1c10807292205n51cc4600u6b79fa02de591747@mail.gmail.com> <17c6771e0807300413t576d5a27r15317967f7020979@mail.gmail.com> <1ccfd1c10807300919g7bc7a75fmba3686f8855b88dd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4890A7FD.3090906@sun.com> Martin Buchholz wrote: > Andrew raises a good point. > > It's true that Sun does not provide binaries for OpenJDK, > and the code that deploys them is not open source, > but... it would be nice if Sun did provide OpenJDK binaries > (since Sun builds them) OpenJDK is an open source delivery, the JDK7 builds are built from the OpenJDK7 sources plus more. The JDK7 has specific build platforms we build on, some of which may not be the build platforms that make sense for various users of the OpenJDK. We will be upgrading but that takes time. We test build just the OpenJDK (+binaryplugs) on select systems, but there are no bundles and these builds are very limited as to where they could be run. If an open source developer needs a pure OpenJDK build for a particular platform/compiler, the basic concept is that they would build it themselves. The list of possible build platforms and compiler combinations is just too long to make any other approach make sense right now. > and I would certainly expect the web deployment code > to become open source eventually, even if not technically > a part of OpenJDK. Can't speak to that issue. > If I were still at Sun, I probably would have used > Sun's internal bug-tracking system to report such bugs. The bug with the execute permissions is filed, are you refering to another bug? --- And P1 is a priority given to bugs that have no workaround, having to 'chmod a+x bin/* jre/bin/*' after installing a tarball, doesn't seem like so bad a workaround. I agree this is a problem that should be fixed, but if we made all bugs like this P1, well.. just doesn't make sense. -kto > > Martin > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 4:13 AM, Andrew John Hughes > wrote: >> 2008/7/30 Martin Buchholz : >>> I installed the Linux JREs for 6u10 b28, >>> (using java -jar jre......jar) >>> and was surprised to discover none of the >>> programs (like "bin/java") were executable. >>> I checked earlier 6u10 builds, >>> and they have the same problem. >>> I suspect the jdk7 builds also have this problem. >>> >>> This seems like a P1 deployment bug. >>> Hasn't anyone ever run sanity checks >>> on JREs installed this way? >>> >>> Martin >>> >> How is this related to OpenJDK? >> -- >> Andrew :-) >> >> Support Free Java! >> Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK >> http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath >> http://openjdk.java.net >> >> PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net) >> Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA 7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8 >> From martinrb at google.com Wed Jul 30 16:53:07 2008 From: martinrb at google.com (Martin Buchholz) Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 16:53:07 -0700 Subject: JRE install bundles for 6u10 are non-executable In-Reply-To: <4890A7FD.3090906@sun.com> References: <1ccfd1c10807292205n51cc4600u6b79fa02de591747@mail.gmail.com> <17c6771e0807300413t576d5a27r15317967f7020979@mail.gmail.com> <1ccfd1c10807300919g7bc7a75fmba3686f8855b88dd@mail.gmail.com> <4890A7FD.3090906@sun.com> Message-ID: <1ccfd1c10807301653i1ca85cd2p7fda4fca0ec81f56@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Kelly O'Hair wrote: >> If I were still at Sun, I probably would have used >> Sun's internal bug-tracking system to report such bugs. > > The bug with the execute permissions is filed, are you refering > to another bug? No. Probably the ease of searching bugs internally to Sun would have caused me to find the already filed execute permissions bug, and I would never have tried to report it. Martin