Processed: Re: Bug#859660: Bug#859660: artemis running issue

[Debian Bug Tracking System]

Processing control commands:

> severity -1 important
Bug #859660 [artemis] artemis running issue
Severity set to 'important' from 'grave'
> tags -1 moreinfo
Bug #859660 [artemis] artemis running issue
Added tag(s) moreinfo.

-- 
859660: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=859660
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems

Bug#859660: Bug#859660: artemis running issue

[Andreas Tille]

Control: severity -1 important
Control: tags -1 moreinfo

Hi Tony,

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 08:11:52AM -0700, tony mancill wrote:
> This does sound like an issue we had in the past with jarwrapper and
> binfmt-support.  IIRC, Colin Watson was able to track down the source of
> this, but at the moment I cannot locate the details of that exchange.  It
> was something along the lines of there being multiple interpreters
> registered for the given binfmt.

Thanks for ths info.
 
> If we know that the user's kernel supports binfmt_misc, then we should be
> able to figure out what's happening.  The output of "sudo update-binfmts
> --display jarwrapper" (should point to jarwrapper) and "sudo update-binfmts
> --display jar" (should point to jexec) might be informative.  I'll try to
> reproduce locally and report back.

I've reduced the severity of this bug from grave to important and have
added the tag moreinfo.  Jerome, could you please provide the said info?

Kind regards

Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Bug#859660: Bug#859660: artemis running issue

[tony mancill]

Hi Andreas,

This does sound like an issue we had in the past with jarwrapper and
binfmt-support.  IIRC, Colin Watson was able to track down the source of
this, but at the moment I cannot locate the details of that exchange.  It
was something along the lines of there being multiple interpreters
registered for the given binfmt.

If we know that the user's kernel supports binfmt_misc, then we should be
able to figure out what's happening.  The output of "sudo update-binfmts
--display jarwrapper" (should point to jarwrapper) and "sudo update-binfmts
--display jar" (should point to jexec) might be informative.  I'll try to
reproduce locally and report back.

Cheers,
tony




On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 11:36 PM, Andreas Tille  wrote:

> Hi Java developers,
>
> is there any known issue with running JARs via symlink to /usr/bin?
>
> I suspect this is the problem with this bug but I wonder what might be
> the recommended way from Java team about this way to start Java programs
> that used to work but is not always relieable.
>
> Kind regards
>
>   Andreas.
>
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 12:43:42PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 12:17:08PM +0200, Sascha Steinbiss wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > > على الأربعاء  5 نيسـان 2017 ‫12:32، كتب Jerome:
> > > >> When running artemis package, get this issue :
> > > >>
> > > >> $ art
> > > >> bash: /usr/bin/art: cannot execute binary file: Exec format error
> > >
> > > Probably something to do with jarwrapper? I remember running into
> > > something similar quite some time ago.
> >
> > I'd assume the same.  I can confirm that I can not reproduce here as
> > well but the problem sounds like jarwrapper connected.  I do not
> > remember what package I had in the past with a similar issue but
> > providing a shell wrapper calling java with some options and the jar
> > file solved the issue.
> >
> > It seems that jarwrapper is not really reliable - as far as I know
> > specifically if users are using a self compiled kernel where this
> > feature can be switched of.
> >
> > Hope this helps
> >
> >  Andreas.
>
> --
> http://fam-tille.de
>
>

Bug#859660: Bug#859660: artemis running issue

[Andreas Tille]

Hi Java developers,

is there any known issue with running JARs via symlink to /usr/bin?

I suspect this is the problem with this bug but I wonder what might be
the recommended way from Java team about this way to start Java programs
that used to work but is not always relieable.

Kind regards

  Andreas.

On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 12:43:42PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 12:17:08PM +0200, Sascha Steinbiss wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > > على الأربعاء  5 نيسـان 2017 ‫12:32، كتب Jerome:
> > >> When running artemis package, get this issue :
> > >>
> > >> $ art
> > >> bash: /usr/bin/art: cannot execute binary file: Exec format error
> > 
> > Probably something to do with jarwrapper? I remember running into
> > something similar quite some time ago.
> 
> I'd assume the same.  I can confirm that I can not reproduce here as
> well but the problem sounds like jarwrapper connected.  I do not
> remember what package I had in the past with a similar issue but
> providing a shell wrapper calling java with some options and the jar
> file solved the issue.
> 
> It seems that jarwrapper is not really reliable - as far as I know
> specifically if users are using a self compiled kernel where this
> feature can be switched of.
> 
> Hope this helps
> 
>  Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

Bug#859660: Bug#859660: artemis running issue

[Andreas Tille]

Hi,

On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 12:17:08PM +0200, Sascha Steinbiss wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > على الأربعاء  5 نيسـان 2017 ‫12:32، كتب Jerome:
> >> When running artemis package, get this issue :
> >>
> >> $ art
> >> bash: /usr/bin/art: cannot execute binary file: Exec format error
> 
> Probably something to do with jarwrapper? I remember running into
> something similar quite some time ago.

I'd assume the same.  I can confirm that I can not reproduce here as
well but the problem sounds like jarwrapper connected.  I do not
remember what package I had in the past with a similar issue but
providing a shell wrapper calling java with some options and the jar
file solved the issue.

It seems that jarwrapper is not really reliable - as far as I know
specifically if users are using a self compiled kernel where this
feature can be switched of.

Hope this helps

 Andreas.

-- 
http://fam-tille.de