#983878 openjdk-11-jre-headless: OpenJDK fails to delete directories on mips64el

Package:
openjdk-11-jre-headless
Source:
openjdk-11
Description:
OpenJDK Java runtime, using Hotspot JIT (headless)
Submitter:
Olek Wojnar
Date:
2023-02-01 15:45:03 UTC
Severity:
important
#983878#5
Date:
2021-03-02 17:05:20 UTC
From:
To:
Dear OpenJDK Maintainers,

This bug report is a follow-up to the email discussion [1] about how OpenJDK
does not correctly delete directories on mips64el. The Bazel team discovered
this problem when the bazel-bootstrap package FTBFS on mips64el. The build
uses `deleteRecursively` from Guava which in turn should call the appropriate
system command.

From the email thread, there was a suggestion to try the mainline JDK NIO
tests. [2]

There was also a recommended patch [3] that may address this issue.

We have verified that the `deleteRecursively` functionality works correctly on
the following achitectures: amd64, arm64, ppc64el, s390x, ppc64, and riscv64.

Thanks!

#983878#12
Date:
2021-03-03 16:50:56 UTC
From:
To:
So this bug is definitely not RC but would it be possible to get a fix for
it into bullseye? This seems like something that would be good to fix
before that release is stable.

Thanks in advance!

#983878#17
Date:
2021-03-04 10:02:32 UTC
From:
To:
Control: tags -1 - patch
Control: tags -1+ moreinfo

Debian has porter boxes ...  please build with the proposed patch and check if
your bootstrap works.  You can run the just built jdk from the build location.

#983878#24
Date:
2021-03-04 23:49:19 UTC
From:
To:
Hi Matthias,

Thanks for the suggestion! Ideally, I would love to investigate this
further. Realistically, I don't have the time (right now) to investigate a
problem in OpenJDK on an architecture I know almost nothing about. If
someone closer to the problem is able to do some troubleshooting, that
would be great! If not, I will certainly try to give it a shot myself in
the next several months.

#983878#29
Date:
2023-02-01 15:37:36 UTC
From:
To:
Hi,

did anyone ever test whether the tests that failed before succeeded
with the patch applied?

I have a reason to believe that the patch may be needed but the
comment on top is incorrect:

In https://lists.zytor.com/archives/klibc/2023-January/004705.html
a problem with klibc on mips64el was pointed out leading to
https://lists.zytor.com/archives/klibc/2023-January/004706.html
which patched the arch-specific “struct stat”. If my_fstatat64_func
uses its own concept of struct stat, this may need adjusting, too.

bye,
//mirabilos