On Wed, 2017-02-22 at 15:34 +0100, Steffen Weinhart wrote: > When trying to execute a .jar-file (x-bit is set) via terminal, I get the > error 'invalid file (bad magic number): Exec format error'. The same > procedure with the same .jar used to work in an earlier version of openjdk > (about 2 months ago, already openjdk-8).
The same issue occurs in <https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ditaa/+bug/1498832>. It appears to occur when there is a version-mismatch between jexec and the jar. For example, with ditaa 0.10+ds1-1.1 /usr/lib/jvm/java-7-openjdk-amd64/jre/lib/jexec /usr/bin/ditaa works while /usr/lib/jvm/java-8-openjdk-amd64/jre/lib/jexec /usr/bin/ditaa fails with `invalid file (bad magic number): Exec format error`. /usr/bin/jarwrapper /usr/bin/ditaa also works. Note that whether executing a jar file works is dependent on the order that jarwrapper and the openjdk-*-jre-headless packages were configured. Whichever package was configured first is the one used used by binfmt_misc. Note that the conflicting jar registrations was also mentioned in https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=136993#82 I contend that if jexec can not handle jars from different Java versions, then it should not be registered with binfmt_misc. If it must be, for compatibility, then perhaps binfmt-support should have a priority system like alternatives so that jarwrapper can be registered with a higher priority? Cheers, Kevin _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openjdk Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openjdk More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
