Issue 93559 - Report Builder 1.0.5 cannot be installed
Summary: Report Builder 1.0.5 cannot be installed
Alias: None
Product: Base
Classification: Application
Component: ReportBuilder (show other issues)
Version: OOO300m5
Hardware: All All
: P2 Trivial (vote)
Target Milestone: OOo 3.0
Assignee: ocke.janssen
QA Contact: issues@dba
Keywords: oooqa, regression, release_blocker
Depends on:
Blocks: 88888
  Show dependency tree
Reported: 2008-09-07 09:30 UTC by andreschnabel
Modified: 2008-10-10 06:24 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

See Also:
Issue Type: DEFECT
Latest Confirmation in: ---
Developer Difficulty: ---

Screenshot (10.96 KB, text/plain)
2008-09-07 09:47 UTC, Mechtilde
no flags Details
default to an existing entry (713 bytes, patch)
2008-09-08 15:36 UTC, hjs
no flags Details | Diff

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this issue.
Description andreschnabel 2008-09-07 09:30:23 UTC
SRB 1.0.5 (see URL) cannot be installed. Extension manager reports an error,
that the license text cannot be found. 

Problem has been verified on Kubuntu, Debian, WinXP.

The problem seems to be caused by a inconsistent license-id ("en-US" vs.

    <simple-license accept-by="admin" default-license-id="en-US" >
            <license-text xlink:href="registration/license_en-US.txt"
lang="en-US" license-id="lic-en-US"/>
Comment 1 Mechtilde 2008-09-07 09:33:19 UTC
attach the screenshot I took
Comment 2 Mechtilde 2008-09-07 09:47:14 UTC
Created attachment 56291 [details]
Comment 3 Mechtilde 2008-09-07 10:01:50 UTC
In the meantime we found out that it wors in an English environment

but it doen't work in all other environments,

e.g english version with German langpacks.
Comment 4 r4zoli 2008-09-07 17:00:19 UTC
Under WinXP, and en-US version, and Hungarian langpack SRB 1.0.5-beta works. 
SRB was installed, before Hu langpack installation. 
Comment 5 andreschnabel 2008-09-07 17:41:44 UTC
Installation will work in en-US environments (or en-US Office installation), as
the language attribute of the license tag is correct.

Installation will only fail in non en-US environments, as the default licenses
id ("en-US") is not defined in the list of licenses.
Comment 6 ocke.janssen 2008-09-08 07:29:13 UTC
Seems to be a problem in the makefile or in the perl script Please have a look at it. Thanks.
Comment 7 r4zoli 2008-09-08 08:59:07 UTC
Under openSuSE 11.0 SRB 1.0.5 works with Hu langpack, installation problems same.
Comment 8 Mechtilde 2008-09-08 09:24:32 UTC

do you work with the HU UI or with the English UI at the time of installation

It works for me also if I change the UI Language from German to English then I
can install the extension.

Comment 9 r4zoli 2008-09-08 09:55:03 UTC
I used en UI, than installation works.
Hu UI no installation.
May be the interpretation of word "works", caused some misunderstanding.
If I can install SRB with en-US UI, after that it works, as desired.  
I interpreted your text, if you installed SRB it does not work, not pure
installation process, what you write about. 
Comment 10 hjs 2008-09-08 15:36:32 UTC
Created attachment 56326 [details]
default to an existing entry
Comment 11 hjs 2008-09-08 15:39:44 UTC
the attached patch applied to the sourcereportbuilder/util/ description.xml) or
the according change to the description.xml in the oxt file fixes the problem here.
Comment 12 hjs 2008-09-09 12:39:37 UTC
Comment 13 ocke.janssen 2008-09-09 12:40:04 UTC
Looks good.
Comment 14 kurt.zenker 2008-09-10 19:45:43 UTC
The patch has been applied as masterfix on OOO300m6. I can't apply the patch on
DEV300 yet.
Comment 15 Mechtilde 2008-09-17 17:20:35 UTC
I test it with OOO300_m6 German version and it doesn't work.

so I reopen this Issue
Comment 16 Frank Schönheit 2008-09-17 19:55:46 UTC
Which version of the SRB did you use? (really, I still hope for a future where
you tell this before asking you :) SCNR :)The same as last time? If so, that's
the problem - the fix was in the extension, and I am not sure Ocke uploaded a
new version of it.
Comment 17 Mechtilde 2008-09-17 20:06:28 UTC
@ fs

sorry but kz wrote the fix is as masterfix in m6. That was the reason I don't
wrote something about my SRB.

Sorry for misunderstanding the context.
Comment 18 Frank Schönheit 2008-09-17 20:08:50 UTC
no problem. So - did you use the "old" version, or a new one obtained from
somewhere else?
Comment 19 Frank Schönheit 2008-09-17 20:15:18 UTC
note: I uploaded a beta-2 of SRB 1.0.5 to, which was taken from an OOO300.m6
build - please try this version.
Comment 20 Mechtilde 2008-09-17 20:29:52 UTC
the new version fs announced works

set fixed again

Comment 21 Frank Schönheit 2008-09-17 20:40:27 UTC
thanks for testing this that quickly, and reporting back!
Comment 22 Mechtilde 2008-09-24 15:43:06 UTC
verified with the latest build of SRB 1.0.5 on
Comment 23 Mechtilde 2008-09-24 15:51:17 UTC
-> closed
Comment 24 geki 2008-10-03 15:35:29 UTC
I have another installation failure from the Extension Manager with OOO300m9.
Gentoo/amd64 linux.

The dialog box shows 'error: invalid header field'.

If I change the manifest entry 'UNO-Type-Path' of sun-report-builder.jar from
'UNO-Type-Path:' to 'UNO-Type-Path: .' it loads fine.

I wonder where it should point to.
Comment 25 Mechtilde 2008-10-03 15:38:58 UTC
The last version 1.0.5 from website doesn't work for me in one test.

To confirm it I need further access on 64 bit
Comment 26 ocke.janssen 2008-10-07 12:23:34 UTC
Comment 27 ocke.janssen 2008-10-07 12:31:07 UTC
Could you please take over. Thanks.
Comment 28 ocke.janssen 2008-10-09 06:59:25 UTC
Comment 29 Stephan Bergmann 2008-10-09 10:05:29 UTC
The sun-report-builder.jar contained in
<> contains
a META-INF/MANIFEST.MF that contains a line containing the text "UNO-Type-Path:"
followed by SPACE, CR, LF.  This is legal syntax according to
 Changing the data encoded in the UNO-Type-Path header from the empty string to
"." as you suggest would change the semantics, see

@geki:  Since the error you get is "invalid header field," I assume that the
Java version your OOo is using has problems with the JAR specification, instead
of there being problems with the semantics of the extension's UNO-Type-Path. 
Please verify by trying with a different Java version (even from a different
vendor, if possible).
Comment 30 geki 2008-10-09 16:11:59 UTC
Hmm, last test was successful. I will see on next build and report to jdk devs
if necessary.

I wonder why I got assigned to the bug. ;)
May it be jar spec violation or user error, my error is invalid.
And I still wonder how empty entries could be of any use, but o well ... ;)

Anyone, feel free to take over. :)
Comment 31 Stephan Bergmann 2008-10-09 16:34:48 UTC
"I wonder why I got assigned to the bug. ;) May it be jar spec violation or user
error, my error is invalid.": @oj: Please take over again (I lost track what
else, if anything, apart from geki's---now deemed invalid---<#desc25> is still

"And I still wonder how empty entries could be of any use, but o well ... ;)":
See "For backwards compatibility, if you do not include the UNO-Type-Path
manifest entry at all, the UNO runtime assumes that the current jar does contain
UNO types."
Comment 32 ocke.janssen 2008-10-10 06:23:49 UTC
Nothing more is open. I now set it to fixed again as it was fixed before :-) And
closing it afterwards. 
Comment 33 ocke.janssen 2008-10-10 06:24:15 UTC