Bug 1305871 - XJC path expansion for python sdk build
Summary: XJC path expansion for python sdk build
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager
Classification: Red Hat
Component: ovirt-engine-sdk-python
Version: 3.6.0
Hardware: All
OS: All
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ovirt-3.6.3
: ---
Assignee: Juan Hernández
QA Contact: Pavol Brilla
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2016-02-09 12:49 UTC by Pavol Brilla
Modified: 2016-02-17 07:33 UTC (History)
8 users (show)

Fixed In Version: rhevm-sdk-python-3.6.2.1-2
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of: 1305482
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-02-17 07:33:27 UTC
oVirt Team: Infra
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Pavol Brilla 2016-02-09 12:49:00 UTC
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1305482 +++

Description of problem:

During erratum run I received:
/usr/src/redhat/BUILD/ovirt-engine-sdk-python-3.6.2.1/generator/regenerate.xml:22: Execute failed: java.io.IOException: Cannot run program "xjc": error=2, No such file or directory


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
rhevm-sdk-python-3.6.2.1-1.el6ev.noarch.rpm

How reproducible:
100%

Steps to Reproduce:
1.  run srpmtest for rhevm-sdk-python

Actual results:


Expected results:
xjc should be found

--- Additional comment from Juan Hernández on 2016-02-08 12:50:24 CET ---

This happens because we assume that the directory /usr/lib/jvm/java-1.8.0-openjdk always exists. But that isn't true, because this is created by the "alternatives" tool, and may not exist in some situations. To avoid this issue we can instead calculate JAVA_HOME like this:

JAVA_HOME=$(dirname $(rpm -ql java-1.8.0-openjdk-devel | grep '/bin$'))

--- Additional comment from Juan Hernández on 2016-02-08 12:51:56 CET ---

Pavol, do we need this fixed in order to pass TPS tests, or is there any workaround?

Comment 2 Oved Ourfali 2016-02-11 13:35:29 UTC
Juan - should this be on_qa?

Comment 3 Juan Hernández 2016-02-11 13:42:12 UTC
Yes, it should.

Comment 4 Gil Klein 2016-02-17 07:33:27 UTC
This bug was fixed and is slated to be in the upcoming version. As we
are focusing our testing at this phase on severe bugs, this bug was
closed without going through its verification step. If you think this
bug should be verified by QE, please set its severity to high and move
it back to ON_QA


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.