Jabref: flawed dependencies force installation of OpenJDK java

[Erwin]

Jabref (2.7~beta1+ds-5) requires Java, the package depends on openjdk-6-jre or sun-java6-jre. The latter is, however, not available anymore as a package in Ubuntu 12.04 LTS.

Sun/Oracle Java may be installed via apt-get (see package update-sun-jre from http://www.duinsoft.nl/pkg). But since the package is not known in the jabref dependency list, installing jabref will result in the needless installation of some 100 MB OpenJDK Java. I consider the dependency list of jabref flawed since it forces users effectively to a specific variant of Java.

IMHO, the simplest solution would be replacing "sun-java6-jre" by "update-sun-jre", which is however from an external source.

A better solution would be a dependency to a virtual package, which is satisfied when _any_ Java installation is available.

[Erwin (junkmail-hoefling)]

A similar issue has been reported in Bug #712132. Unlike pdftk, jabref does not link to a specific Java library. It works with Sun Java as well.

Actually, the dependeny list of jabref appears pretty long to me. Taking into account that the file jabref.jar file and a simple wrapper script do the job:

<code>
/etc/alternatives/java -jar /usr/share/java/jabref.jar $@
</code>

[gregor herrmann (gregoa)]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:50:02 -0000, Erwin wrote:

> A better solution would be a dependency to a virtual package, which is
> satisfied when _any_ Java installation is available.

Virtual packages are not allowed as the first alternative in a
dependency by the Debian Policy.

Last time I looked, JabRef only worked with OpenJDK and Sun Java but
not with other alternatives; if you know other working
implementations I'm happy to add them.

BTW: Ubuntu/raring and Debian/experimental have 2.9~beta2+ds-1 or
newer with:
"openjdk-7-jre | java6-runtime"
(with java6-runtime being provided by default-jre, openjdk-6-jre,
openjdk-7-jre, sun-java6-jre in Debian.)

Does this already address your concern?

Cf. also http://bugs.debian.org/689253

Cheers,
gregor

--
 .''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06
 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer - http://www.debian.org/
 `. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe
   `- NP: Ludwig Hirsch: Boogie woogie

[Erwin (junkmail-hoefling)]

Thanks for the quick reply. Indeed, changing the dependency to "openjdk-7-jre | java6-runtime" would fix the issue for me. The package update-sun-jre mentioned above also provides java-runtime as well as java6-runtime.

Is it possible to include the fixed dependencies for Ubuntu 12.04 as well? In particular sun-java6-jre should be deleted since it does not exist anymore in the repositories.

Erwin

[Tony Mancill (tmancill)]

On 02/12/2013 08:45 AM, gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:50:02 -0000, Erwin wrote:
>
>> A better solution would be a dependency to a virtual package, which is
>> satisfied when _any_ Java installation is available.
>
> Virtual packages are not allowed as the first alternative in a
> dependency by the Debian Policy.
>
> Last time I looked, JabRef only worked with OpenJDK and Sun Java but
> not with other alternatives; if you know other working
> implementations I'm happy to add them.
>
> BTW: Ubuntu/raring and Debian/experimental have 2.9~beta2+ds-1 or
> newer with:
> "openjdk-7-jre | java6-runtime"
> (with java6-runtime being provided by default-jre, openjdk-6-jre,
> openjdk-7-jre, sun-java6-jre in Debian.)

In addition to Gregor's response regarding the ordering of tangible vs.
virtual dependencies, it is difficult to know a priori what package
names (outside of those distributed directly by Debian or Ubuntu) will
satisfy the JRE/JDK dependency. If you would like to use a non-distro
JRE/JDK, you can use equivs (or a similar mechanism) to ensure that the
package will satisfy java6-runtime.

Cheers,
tony

[gregor herrmann (gregoa)]

On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:11:22 -0000, Erwin wrote:

> Thanks for the quick reply. Indeed, changing the dependency to
> "openjdk-7-jre | java6-runtime" would fix the issue for me. The package
> update-sun-jre mentioned above also provides java-runtime as well as
> java6-runtime.

Great!

> Is it possible to include the fixed dependencies for Ubuntu 12.04 as
> well? In particular sun-java6-jre should be deleted since it does not
> exist anymore in the repositories.

To be honest: I'm not sure how this works in Ubuntu (I'm maintaining
jabref, together with Tony, in Debian), but I agree that having this
fixed for 12.04 would be nice.

If it helps i can prepare a debdiff, but I guess whoever has upload
rights can just change the dependency themselves too :)

Cheers,
gregor, bcc'ing a potential helper

--
 .''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06
 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer - http://www.debian.org/
 `. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe
   `- NP: Rolling Stones: Hand-of-fate

[Launchpad Janitor (janitor)]

Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users.

[Erwin (junkmail-hoefling)]

Dear Gregor,

Sorry for the delayed response. I contacted somebody from Ubuntu about how to fix the bug. He named you as the package maintainer of jabref and that you are eligible to package fixes.

If I understand this guide http://developer.ubuntu.com/packaging/html/security-and-stable-release-updates.html right, the patch has to be submitted to launchpad as a merge proposal along with notifying ubuntu-sru about the bug.

I'm not too familiar with packaging, but let me know if I can be of any further help.

Erwin

[gregor herrmann (gregoa)]

On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 09:08:36 -0000, Erwin wrote:

> Dear Gregor,
> Sorry for the delayed response.

No problem, thanks for looking into this issue further.

> I contacted somebody from Ubuntu about
> how to fix the bug. He named you as the package maintainer of jabref and
> that you are eligible to package fixes.

Well, I still don't have upload permissions in Ubuntu :)

> If I understand this guide
> http://developer.ubuntu.com/packaging/html/security-and-stable-release-updates.html
> right, the patch has to be submitted to launchpad as a merge
> proposal along with notifying ubuntu-sru about the bug.

It seems you've already subscribed ubuntu-sru to the bug, thanks.

I've now created a debdiff for precise -> precise-proposed which
should fix this issue and be ready for an upload (attached).

> I'm not too familiar with packaging, but let me know if I can be of any
> further help.

According to https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates there might
be some other steps necessary to actually get this uploaded; maybe
marking the bug as Fixed (in raring) and/or updating the description
and/or subscribing ubuntu-sponsors is also necessary? - So if you
could point someone who can actually get this patch into precise to
his bug that would be great :)

Cheers,
gregor

--
 .''`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - OpenPGP key 0xBB3A68018649AA06
 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, and developer - http://www.debian.org/
 `. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of the Free Software Foundation Europe
   `- NP: Red Hot Chili Peppers: Wet Sand