Bug 924334
Summary: | Script wsconsume.sh fails to compile classes on RHEL6_x86_64 + openjdk1.6.0-local combination | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [JBoss] JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 6 | Reporter: | Vladimir Rastseluev <vrastsel> |
Component: | Scripts and Commands | Assignee: | Pavel Tisnovsky <ptisnovs> |
Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | 6.1.0 | CC: | akostadi, jkudrnac, myarboro, nziakova, pkremens, pslavice, rdickens, rsvoboda, vrastsel |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | x86_64 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Known Issue | |
Doc Text: |
When using the `wsconsume.sh` script on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 (X86_64 architecture), together with OpenJDK 1.6.0, the utility fails to compile the generated Java source code. The underlying cause of this issue is unknown but actively being investigated. No known workaround is available.
|
Story Points: | --- |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2013-11-21 09:13:09 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Vladimir Rastseluev
2013-03-21 15:03:18 UTC
Alessio, can you please look into this? Thanks! I've run the test locally with the following jdk version and I can't reproduce the problem: java version "1.6.0_18" OpenJDK Runtime Environment (IcedTea6 1.8.8) (fedora-51.1.8.8.fc13-x86_64) OpenJDK 64-Bit Server VM (build 14.0-b16, mixed mode) There was Java version: 1.6.0_24 in tests run. FYI this is a problem still in 6.1.1 and openjdk 1.7 (see bug 999223) @Pavel Aleksandar Kostadinov has probably active beaker machine with env setup where he was able to hit this problem - more details in BZ 999223 Release notes text added to be published in JBoss EAP 6.2.0 Release Notes document. Is not this bug a duplicate of BZ 999223 which was already fixed in 6.2.0? I can't immediately see the difference. It definitely is. Closing this, thanks for pointing this out. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 999223 *** |